## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### Oc to be r 31,200 6 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT STATE OF N EW M EXI CO ; STATE OF NE W M E XI CO ex re l. P AT RI CI A A. M ADR I D, AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE S T AT E OF NE W M E XI CO , P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants , v. N o. 04- 2191 G E N E R A L E L E C T R IC C O M P A N Y , a Ne w Yo r k c o rp o r a t i o n ; ACF IN D U S T R IE S , IN C . , a N ew Y o rk corpor at i on, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. S T AT E S OF CO L OR ADO, KE NT UC KY, M AI NE , M ONT ANA, NE VADA, NE W J E RS E Y, OHI O, OK LAH OM A, OR EGO N, SOU TH CA RO L I NA, UT AH, WI S CO NS I N, AND WYOMI NG, A m ici C u ri ae in su p p o rt of P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants , and AM ERI CAN CHEM I S TRY CO UNC I L ; AM E RI CA N P E T RO L E UM I NS T I T UT E ; NAT I ONAL M I NI NG AS S OC I AT I ON; CH AM BE R O F CO M M ERCE O F THE UN I TED2

S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ; NAT I ONAL AS S OC I AT I ON O F M A N U FA CT U RE RS; U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U N C IL FO R I N TER N A TI O N A L B U SI N ESS; I NDE P E NDE NT P E T RO L E UM AS S OC I AT I ON OF AM E RI CA ; NAT I ONAL P E T RO CH E M I CA L & RE F I NE RS AS S OC I AT I ON; RUBBE R M ANU F ACTURE RS AS S OC I AT I ON; AM E RI CA N GAS AS S OC I AT I ON, A m ici C u ri ae in su p p o rt of D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees.

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF NE W M EX I CO ( D. C. No s . CI V- 9 9 - 1 1 1 8 BS J / KBM ; CI V- 9 9 - 1 2 5 4 BS J /ACT) J ames D . O l i ver , Speci al A s s i s t antA t t orneyG ener al ( C al eb St egal l , w i th hi m on the bri efs) , of F ou l st on S i efkin, L L P , O verl and P ark, K ansas, for Plai nti ffs-A pp el l ants . D onal d W . Fow l er , Spr i ggs & H ol l i ngs w or th, W as hi ngt on, D . C . ( T ami L yn A zor s kyof M cK enn a, L on g & A l dri dg e, W ashi ng t on , D . C . , E ri c G . L asker of S pri gg s & H oll i ng sw orth, W ashi ng t on , D . C . ; M ari a O ’B ri en o f M od ral l , S perl i ng , R oeh l , H arr i s & Si s k, P. A . , A l buquer que, N ew M exi co; J ames A . B ruen and Pet erS. M odl i n of Far el l a, Br a u n & M a r t e l l , LL P , S a n F r a n c i s c o , Ca l i f o rn i a ; M i c h a e l B. Ca mp b e l l a n d Br a d f o r d C. B er ge, H ol l and & H art , L L P, Sant a Fe, N ew M exi co; B r acke t tB . D enni s t on, I I I , V i ce P re sid e n t an d G e n e ra l C o u n se l, S tep h e n D . R a m se y , V ice P re sid e n t, G e n e ra l E lec tric C o m p a n y , F a irf

ield , C o n n e c ticu t; W ill iam s V . K ill o ra n , Jr., S e n io r C o u n se l, E nvi r onm ent al A ffa i r s , G . E . T r ans por t at i on, C i nci nnat i , O hi o, w i th hi m on the br i efs ) , for D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. J ohn W . Sut her s , I nt er i m A t t orneyG ener al of C ol or ado, and V i ct or i a L. Pet er s , Seni or A s s i s t antA t t orneyG ener al , N atur al R es our ces & E nvi r onm entSect i on, St at e of3

C olor ado , D env er, C olor ado , fi l ed an A m i cus C uri ae B ri ef i n S up po rtof P l ai nti ffsA pp el l ants . M i chae l R . T horp of H el l erE hr m an LL P, Seatt l e, W as hi ngt on, fi l ed an A m i cus C ur i ae B ri ef i n S up po rtof D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees.

B e f o re , M c CO NNELL , AN DE RS ON , and BA LD OCK , C i rcui tJudg es. BA LD OCK , C i r cui tJ udge. T h i s i s a c a s e i n wh i c h th e At t o rn e yGe n e r a l f o rth e S t a t e o f

Ne w M e x i c o ( AG) s eeks unr es tr i ct ed moneydamages excl us i vel yunders t at e l aw forgr oundw at er co n tam ination in A lbu q u erq u e’s S o u th V all ey . T h e d istri ct co u rtg ran ted s u m m ary j udgm entt o D efe ndant s G ener al E l ectr i c ( G E ) and A C F I ndus tr i es ( A C F) beca us e the A G “fa i l ed t o r ai s e genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac ton the es s ent i al el ement s of i nj uryand d a m a g e s .” N e w M e x ic o v . G e n e ra l E le c . C o ., 3 2 2 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 2 3 7 , 1 2 7 1 (D .N .M . 2 0 0 4 ). W e e x e rc ise ju risd ictio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , an d a f f irm in p a rt a n d d ism iss in p a rt. I . B eca us e fe der al l aw , namel yC E R C L A , i m pact s the A G ’ s damage cl ai m i n a m yr i ad of w ay s , w e fi r s ttr ace the cour s e of f eder al l y - m andat ed r emedi al eff or t s overtheT he off i ci al t i t l e of CE R C L A , al s o know n as Super fund, i s the C om pr ehens i ve 1 E n v iro n m e n tal R e sp o n se , C o m p e n sa tio n , an d L iab ili tyA c t, P u b . L . N o . 9 6 -5 1 0 , 9 4 S tat. 2767 ( 1980) , as amended bythe Super fund A m endment s and R eauthor i zat i on A ctof 1 9 8 6 , P u b . L . N o . 9 9 -4 9 9 , 1 0 0 S ta t. 1 6 1 3 (1 9 8 6 ) ( c o d if ie d a t 4 2 U .S .C . § § 9 6 0 1 -9 6 7 5 ). Th e c o r e o f

th e CER CLA c l e a n u p p r o g r a m i s th e Na t i o n a l Co n t i n g e n c yP l a n , 4 0 C. F . R. Par t300, w hi ch es t abl i s hes r es pons e pr ocedur es . See U ni t ed St at es v. C i tyand C ountyof D e n v e r, 1 0 0 F .3 d 1 5 0 9 , 1 5 1 1 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). T h e E n v iro n m e n tal P ro tec tio n A g e n c yis the del egat ee of

the Pr es i dent s ’ author i tyunderC E R C L A . See 42 U . S. C . § 9615. T h e S o u th V a lle ys its a to p th e M id d le R io G ra n d e U n d e rg ro u n d W a te r B a s in . 2 T h e b asin , w h ich c o n tai n s a se ri es o f in terco n n ec ted a q u ifers, un d erli es N ew M ex ico’s R i o G r ande Ri verV al l ey , ext endi ng appr oxi m at el y100 m i l es s outh fr om nearL os A lam o s to E leph an t B u tt e R ese rvo ir . T h e b asin co n tai n s ap p rox im ately1 . 2 b il li o n ac re feetof g round w at er and u nd erl i es a sur face area of ab ou t1. 5 m i l l i on acres . 4 p a st tw o d e c a d e s to c lea n u p th e c o n tam in a tio n . T h e S o u th V a lleyis lo c a ted in a lar g e ly 1 i ndus tr i al ar ea e as tof the R i o G r ande Ri verand w es tof the A l buquer que I nt ernat i onal Sunpor t , nearthe i nt er s ect i on of B r oadw ayand W oodw ar d A venues . T he cont ami nat ed 2 s i t e enc om pas s es appr oxi m at el yone s quar e mi l e. A r es i dent i al ar ea w i th ar ound 600 re sid e n ts lies ju st n o rth o f th e site . T h e c o n tam in a tio n a f f e c ts th e c ity ’s S a n Jo se w e ll fi el d, one of tw enty - fi ve w el l fi el ds s ervi ng the ci ty . T he pr opertyfr om w hi ch the chemi cal cont ami nat i on i nvol ved i n thi s cas e or i gi nat ed i s l ocat ed on the w es t ern por t i on of the s i t e. I n 1951, the A t om i c Ener gyC om m i s s i on pr ocur ed the pr operty , and, thr ough D efe ndantA C F, engage d i n pr oduct i on act i vi t i es r el at ed t o the manufactur e of nuc l ear w e a p o n s c o m p o n e n ts. In 1 9 6 7 , the U n ited S tate s A ir F o rc e (U S A F ) c o n v e rte d th e f a c ili ty i nt o an ai r cr aftengi ne part s m anufa ctur i ng pl ant . Forthe nexts i xt een y ear s , D efe ndant G E oper at ed Pl ant83, as i ti s comm onl yknow n, undera s er i es of contr act s w i th the U S A F . I n 1 9 8 3 , G E p u r c h a s e d P l a n t8 3 a n d o p e r a t e s i ts t i l l t o d a y.T oday , petr ol eum fuel s and var i ous otheror gani c che m i cal s ar e handl ed and 3 sto re d w ith in th e S o u th V a lleysite . In a d d iti o n to P lan t 8 3 , ind u stria l f a c ili ties lo c a ted in the South V al l eyi ncl ude petr ol eum produc tpi pel i ne and bul k di s tr i but i on fac i l i t i es ow ned by , among ot her s , C hevr on U SA I nc. and Texaco I nc. , and an i ndus tr i al chemi cal di s tr i but i on fac i l i tyow ned byU ni varU SA I nc. C hevr on and Texaco w er e named d e f e n d a n ts in th is la w s u it, b u t s e ttle d w ith th e S ta te ju s t p ri o r t o a p p e lla te a rg u m e n t. U n iv a r w a s n o t a n a m e d D e f e n d a n t. 5

A . T he ci tyfi r s ts us pect ed gr oundw at ercont ami nat i on i n the South V al l eyi n 1978 w h en irreg u lar t astes a n d o d o rs ap p ea red in w ater fro m p ri v ate w ell s n ea r th e a rea ’s i ndus tr i al fac i l i t i es . Subse quents ampl i ng r evea l ed ce r t ai n vol at i l e or gani c compounds ( V O C s ) harm ful t o heal th and the envi r onm enti n the ar ea’ s m uni ci pal w el l s , i ncl udi ng the San J os e N o. 6 ( SJ- 6) . I n 1981, aft erfurthers ampl i ng, the Envi r onm ent al I m pr ovementD i vi s i on of the N ew M exi co H eal th and Envi r onm entD epart m ent (N M E ID ) decom m i ssi on ed S J- 6. S hu t t i ng do w n S J- 6 si gn i fi cantl yi m pacted the S an Jose w e ll fie ld ’s p ro d u c tio n . S J-6 h a d b e e n a p ro d u c tiv e a n d e c o n o m ica l so u rc e o f p o tab le w at erforthous ands of A l buquer que r es i dent s and pl ay ed a ke yr ol e i n pr ovi di ng su f f icie n t f ire p ro tec tio n to th e S o u th V a lley . A s a re su lt o f S J-6 ’s p iv o tal ro le in pr ovi di ng w at ert o the ci ty , N M E I D named t he South V al l eys i t e as the St at e’ s t op pr i or i tyforenvi r onm ent al cl eanup. 3 T he St at e, pur s uantt o C E R C L A , r eques t ed the U ni t ed St at es E nvi r onm ent al Pr ot ect i on A gency( E PA ) t o pl ace the s i t e on the “N at i onal Pr i or i t i es L i s t ” ( N PL ) . See 42 U . S. C . § 9605( a) ( 8) ( B ) . T he EP A pl ace d the South V al l eys i t e on the N PL i n 1983 and,T he N PL i s the l i s tof haz ar dous w as t e s i t es el i gi bl e forl ong- t erm r emedi al 4 a c t i on fi na nc e d u nd e rthe fe de r a l Sup e r fu nd pr og r a m. CE RC LA a nd a c c ompa ny i ng EPA r egul at i ons out l i ne a f

or m al pr oces s foras s es s i ng haza r dous w as t e s i t es and pl aci ng them on the N PL . See 42 U . S. C . § 9605; 40 C . F. R . § 300. 425. T he St at e of N ew M exi co had the South V al l eys i t e pl ace d on the N PL pur s uantt o § 9605( a) ( 8) ( B ) , w hi ch pr ovi des the N P L “ to th e e x ten t p ra c tica b le, s h a ll i n c lu d e a m o n g th e o n e h u n d re d h ig h e st p rio rity fac i l i t i es one s uch fa ci l i tyfr om eac h St at e w hi ch s hal l be the fa ci l i tydes i gnat ed bythe St at e as pr es ent i ng the gr eat es tdangert o publ i c hea l th orw el far e orthe envi r onm ent among t he know n fac i l i t i es i n s uch St at e. ” See a l s o 40 C . F. R . § 300. 425( c) ( 2) . A l l s i t es pl ace d on the N PL m us tunder go a r emedi al i nves t i gat i on and fe as i bi l i tys tudy . See 42 U . S. C . § 9620( e) ( 1) . T he purpos e of s uch s tudyi s t o det erm i ne the natur e and e xt entof cont ami nat i on and i dent i fythe pos s i bl e r emedi al m eas ur es nece s s aryt o pr ot ecthum an heal th and the envi r onm ent . See 40 C . F. R . § 300. 430. “To supportthe s el ect i on of a r emedi al act i on, al l fac t s , anal y s es of fa ct s , and 5 s ite -s p e c if

ic p o lic yd e te rm in a tio n s c o n s id e re d in th e c o u rs e o f c a rr y in g o u t a c tiv itie s . . . s hal l be document ed . . . i n a r ecor d of dec i s i on . . . fori ncl us i on i n the admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d . . . . ” 40 C . F. R . § 300. 430( f) ( 5) ( i ) . A m ong otherthi ngs , the R O D m us tdes cr i be “[h] ow the s el ect ed r emedyi s pr ot ect i ve of human heal th and the envi r onm ent , expl ai ni ng how the r emedyel i m i nat es , r educe s , orcontr ol s expos ur es t o hum an and e nvi r onm ent al r ece pt or s ; ” and “ [t ] he fe der al and s t at e r equi r ement s thatar e appl i cabl e orr el evantand ap p rop ri ate to the sit e tha t th e re m ed yw il l at tai n [.]” Id. § 3 0 0 . 4 3 0 (f)(5)(ii )(A ), (B ). 6 a tth e S t a t e ’ s r e q u e s t , b e g a n th e r e me d i a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d f e a s i b i l i tys tu d yth e s a me y ea r. T h e E P A ’s firsttask w as to d eterm ine if in it ial rem ed ial m ea su res w ere n ec essa ry 4 t o m i t i gat e pot ent i al thr eat s t o hum an hea l th and/ orthe envi r onm entconnec t ed w i th the sh u td o w n o f

S J-6 . In its M a rc h 1 9 8 5 R e c o rd o f D e c isio n (R O D ), th e E P A n o ted c e rta in c o n tam in a n ts d e tec ted d u rin g 1 9 8 4 w e ll sa m p lin g w e re su sp e c ted c a rc in o g e n s w ith r e c o m m e n d e d m a x i m u m c o n t a m i n a n tl e v e l s o f z e r o i n d r i n k i n g w a t e r . C o n s e q u e n t l y, 5 the EPA c on c l ud e d the w a t e rqu a l i tyof SJ - 6 was un fi tfo rhu man c on s umpt i on . The EPA furtherconcl uded the l ack of avai l abl e w at eratthe t ap fr om SJ- 6 adver s el yi m pact ed avai l abl e fi r e pr ot ect i on i n the South V al l ey . I ni t i al r emedi al m eas ur es , al s o t erm edC E R C L A tec h n ica llyd e f in e s “ c lea n u p ” in tw o w a y s. “ R e m o v a l” r e f e rs to 6 a c tio n s d e s ig n e d to a d d re s s im m e d ia te e n v ir o n m e n ta l h a z a rd s . “ T h e te rm in c lu d e s . . . pr ovi s i on of al t ernat i ve w at ers uppl i es ” and otheremer gencym eas ur es w hi ch “maybe n e c e ss a ryto p re v e n t, m in im ize , o r m iti g a te d a m a g e to th e p u b lic h e a lth o r w e lf a re o r to the envi r onm ent , w hi ch mayotherw i s e r es ul tfr om a r el eas e orthr eatof r el eas e” of any haza r dous s ubs t ance . 42 U . S. C . § 9601( 23) . “‘ [R ] emedi al act i on’ m eans thos e ac t i ons cons i s t entw i th perm anentr emedyt aken . . . i n addi t i on t o r emoval act i ons . . . t o pr event or m i nim i ze t he rel ease of h azardou s subst ances so thattheydo no tm i grat e t o cau se s ubs t ant i al dangert o pr es entorfutur e publ i c hea l th orw el far e orthe envi r onm ent . ” The t erm s i m i l ar l yi ncl udes “pr ovi s i on of al t ernat i ve w at ers uppl i es [. ] ” I d. § 9601( 24) ; s ee g en era ll yU n it ed S tat es v . W . R . G rac e & C o . , 4 2 9 F . 3 d 1 2 2 4 , 1 2 3 2 -47 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). E P A regul at i on s defi ne an op erabl e un i tas– 7 a di s cr et e ac t i on thatcompri s es an i ncr ement al s t ep t ow ar d c o m p re h e n siv e ly a d d re ssi ng si t e problem s. T his dis cret e po rt i on of a rem edial res po nse m anage s m i gr at i on, or el i m i nat es or m i t i gat es a r el eas e, thr eatof a r el eas e, or (c o n tin u e d ...) 7 “r emoval ” meas ur es , w er e ther efor e nec es s aryt o l i m i texpos ur e t o both heal th and e n v i r o n m e n t a l h a z a r d s i n th e S o u th V a l l e y. 6 T he EP A s el ect ed as an i ni t i al r emedythe i ns t al l at i on of a ne w w el l , the B ur t on No . 4 ( B- 4 ) , t o r e p l a c e th e c a p a c i tyo f th e c o n t a mi n a t e d S J - 6 . S p e c i f i c a l l y , th e E P A– det erm i ned that the i ns t al l at i on of a new w at er s uppl y w el l as an i ni t i al r emedi al m eas ur e at the South V al l eySuper fund Si t e i s a cos teff ect i ve, envi r onm ent al l ys ound r emedy and i s nece s s ary and fea s i bl e forpr ot ect i on of p u b li c heal th, w el far e, and the envi r onm entfr om expos ur e orthr eatof expos ur e t o a s i gni fi cantheal th orenvi r onm ent al haza r d. See 40 C . F. R . Pt . 300, A pp. D ( l i s t i ng the i ns t al l at i on of “[ n] ew w el l s i n a new l ocat i on or deepe rw el l s ” as an ac cept abl e r emedi al r es pons e t o gr oundw at ercont ami nat i on) . T he E P A lab e led th e w o rk su rro u n d in g th e re p lac e m e n t o f S J-6 w ith B -4 a s O p e ra b le U n it ( O U ) 1. I n i t s 1985 R O D on O U 1, the EP A r eport ed: “The St at e of N ew M exi co

7( . . . cont i nued) 7 pathw ay o f expos ur e. T he cl eanup of a s i t e ca n be di vi ded i nt o a numberof o p e ra b le u n its, d e p e n d in g o n th e c o m p lex ityo f th e p ro b lem s a ss o c iate d w ith th e site . O p e ra b le u n its m a ya d d re ss g e o g ra p h ica l p o rtio n s o f a site , sp e c if

ic s i t e pr obl ems, or in it ia l phas es of an a ct i on, orm aycons i s tof anys etof a c tio n s p e rf

o rm e d o v e r tim e o r a n ya c tio n s tha t a re c o n c u rre n t b u t lo c a ted in di ffe r entpart s of a s i t e. 4 0 C .F .R . § 3 0 0 .5 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h e E P A d iv id e d th e S o u th V a lleyin to six o p e ra b le uni t s , fourof w hi ch ar e r el evantt o thi s act i on. C E R C L A im p o s e s lia b ility o n P R P s f o r c le a n u p c o s ts a n d s p e c if ie d d a m a g e s . 8 See 42 U . S. C . § 9607( a) . Forourpurpos es , PR Ps i n thi s cas e i ncl ude the pr es entow ner o r o p e ra to r o f

a f a c ili tya n d th e o w n e r o r o p e ra to r o f th e f a c ili tya t th e tim e o f

w a ste di s pos al . See i d. N ot abl y , C E R C L A cont ai ns a petr ol eum excl us i on w hi ch exc l udes (c o n tin u e d ...) 8 re q u e s te d th is m e a s u re a n d h a s b e e n c o n s u lte d a n d a g re e s w ith th e a p p ro v e d re m e d y .” B . T he ci typl ace d B - 4 i nt o s ervi ce i n J ul y1988. M eanw hi l e, w or k cont i nued on the r emedi al i nves t i gat i on and fe as i bi l i tys tudyatthe South V al l eys i t e. T he i nves t i gat i on s u rr o u n d in g S J -6 , i . e. , O U 2 , firs t so u g h t to id e n tifyth e so u rc e a n d e x ten t o f c o n tam in a n ts i n the gr oundw at erthats uppl i ed the w el l . I n Sept ember1988, the EP A del i ver ed an R O D w hi ch i dent i fi ed s i x i ndus tr i al fac i l i t i es i n the South V al l eyas the l i kel ys our ces of SJ - 6 ’ s c o n t a mi n a t i o n . Po t e n t i a l l yr e s p o n s i b l e p a r t i e s ( PRP s ) i n c l u d e d th e USA F, GE, C h e v ro n , T e x a c o , W h itf ie ld T a n k L in e s , U n iv a r C o rp o ra tio n , a n d D u k e C ity D is tr ib u tin g . T he R O D on O U 2 i dent i fi ed Pl ant83 and the U ni varfac i l i tyas the l i kel ys our ces of chl or i nat ed s ol vent s found i n the w el l . T he R O D i dent i fi ed the r emai ni ng fourfac i l i t i es as the l i kel ys our ces of petr ol eum cont ami nat i on. 8( . . . cont i nued) 8 petr oleum -der i ved con t am i nati on from i t s r each a nd l i m i t s i t s abi l i tyt o fu l l yadd res s haza r dous w as t e cont ami nat i on. See i d. § 9601( 14) , ( 33) . E PA s tudi es found s i gni fi cant l evel s of petr ol eum cont ami nat i on i n s hal l ow and i nt erm edi at e hy dr ogeol ogi c zone s u n d e rn e a th th e S o u th V a lle y , th e c le a n u p o f w h ic h f a lls w ith in th e S ta te ’s ju ri s d ic tio n . A ccor di ngl y , the St at e has r egul at ed the r emedi at i on of petr ol eum cont ami nat i on i n the S o u th V a lleyth ro u g h h y d ro c a rb o n a g re e m e n ts w ith re sp o n sib le p a rties . S e e N .M . S tat. A n n . § 7 4 -1 -6 .D . (em p o w e rin g th e N e w M e x ico D e p a rtm e n t o f E n v iro n m e n t, fo rm e rly N M E ID , to “ e n ter in to in v e stig a tio n a n d re m e d iatio n a g re e m e n ts w ith p e rso n s p o ten tially li ab le fo r si tes w ith in N ew M ex ico s u b ject t o [C E R C L A ]”). 9 B a se d o n e x ten d e d tes tin g p o st 1 9 8 4 , the R O D n o ted “ c h lo rin a ted so lv e n ts det ect ed i n SJ- 6 m os tl i kel ydo notr epr es entgr oundw at ercont ami nat i on, but cont ami nat i on of s edi m ent s atthe bas e of the w el l . ” B eca us e of s our ce c ontr ol and r emedi at i on of cont ami nat ed pl um es thr ough otheroper abl e uni t s i n the South V al l ey , the E P A c o n c lu d e d “ th e se [ S J-6 ] c o n tam in a n ts d o n o t ap p e a r to p o se a sig n if ica n t h e a lth thr eat . ” B eca us e B - 4 had r epl ace d SJ- 6’ s w at ers uppl y , the EP A chos e t o cl ean a nd s eal SJ- 6 ( al ong w i th atl eas tone otherm uni ci pal w el l and numer ous pr i vat e w el l s i n the ar ea) , m oni t orthe gr oundw at eri n the vi ci ni tyof SJ- 6 foratl eas tthi r tyy ear s , and pl ace acc es s r es tr i ct i ons on new w el l cons truct i on i n the vi ci ni tyof SJ- 6. A ccor di ng t o the R O D , the s el ect ed r emedyw oul d pr eventSJ- 6 fr om s ervi ng as a condui tforcont ami nant m igrati o n into the d ee p aq u ifers resp o n sible fo r sup p ly ing m u n ici p al w ater. To a s s ur e the pe r mane nc e a nd e ff e c t i ve ne s s of

the s e l e c t e d r e medy , the EPA pr ovi ded fora r evi ew of envi r onm ent al condi t i ons s urr oundi ng SJ- 6 aft erfi ve y ear s . See 4 2 U . S . C . § 9 6 2 1 (c) (req u ir ing rev iew o f re m ed ial ac ti o n “n o less o ften than ea ch 5 y ea rsO U 3 and O U 4 addr es s cont ami nat i on atthe U ni varfac i l i ty . A l s o r efe rr ed t o as 9 the Edm unds St r eetpr operty , the U ni varfac i l i tyi s l ocat ed on the s outheas tpor t i on of the s i t e. A pl um e extr act i on and tr eatm ents y s t em has be en oper at i onal atthe fa ci l i tys i nce the ea r l y1990s . B eca us e U ni vari s nota partyt o thi s act i on, r emedi al eff or t s t o cl ean up c o n tam in a tio n a t th a t f

a c ili tya re o n lytan g e n tiallyre lev a n t. S u f f ice it t o sa yth o se e f

f o rts a r e s i m i l a rt o a n d c o n s i s t e n tw i th th e o v e r a l l r e m e d i a l e f f o r ti n th e S o u th V a l l e y. 10 aft erthe i ni t i at i on of s uch r emedi al act i on t o as s ur e thathum an hea l th and the env i ronm ent ar e being p rot ect ed”); 40 C . F . R . § 3 00 . 43 0(f) (4) (i i ) ( sam e). T he E P A al so c r e a t e d a “ De s i g n Re v i e w C o mm i t t e e ” c o n s i s t i n g o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s f

r o m th e E P A, N M E ID , the C ityo f

A lb u q u e rq u e , an d P R P s. S til l to d a y , the c o m m itt e e ’s r e sp o n sib ili ty i s t o coor di nat e the var i ous r emedi al act i ons i m pl ement ed atthe South V al l eySuper fund s i t e t o ens ur e s i t e cl eanup. I n a l ett ert o the EP A , N M E I D concurr ed i n the pr opos ed r emedyforSJ- 6 “condi t i onal on the t i m el yi m pl ement at i on of the r emedys el ect ed i n the G E /U SA F [Pl ant83] R ecor d of D eci s i on. ” N M E I D expl ai ned: “A s w i th otheri ndi vi dual r emedi es s el ect ed foroper abl e uni t s atthe San J os e s i t e, the San J os e 6 r emedyal one does n o t ad d re ss a ll p o ten tial th re a ts to p u b lic h e a lth . H o w e v e r, th is re m e d yw ill p lay a p a rt in th e o v e ra ll s tr a te g yto d o s o .” T o g e th e r w ith its R O D o n O U 2 , th e E P A d e liv e re d its R O D o n G E ’s P la n t 8 3 , i . e. , O U 5 and O U 6, i n Sept ember1988. O U 5 and O U 6 r es pect i vel yaddr es s r emedi at i on of 9 the s hal l ow and dee perzone gr oundw at eraqui fer s under l y i ng Pl ant83. PR Ps i dent i fi ed i n the Pl ant83 R O D i ncl uded, among ot her s , D efe ndant s A C F and G E , the U SA F, and the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof Ener gy( U SD O E ) . T he U SA F conduct ed a f i r s tr ound of11

i nves t i gat i on atPl ant83 i n 1984 and 1985 and a s econd r ound of i nves t i gat i on i n 1987 and 1988, eac h undera M emora ndum of U nder s t andi ng w i th the EP A . B as ed on the U SA F’ s i nves t i gat i on, the EP A concl uded V O C s pr es enti n the gr oundw at erpos ed an u n a c c e p tab le h e a lth risk , “re q u irin g re m e d iatio n to d e p th s o f u p to 1 6 0 f

e e t.” T h is i ncl uded r emedi at i on of the s hal l ow gr oundw at erzone ( s ur fac e t o 30 fee t ) , the i nt erm edi at e zone ( 30 t o 110 fee t ) and the upperpor t i on of the dee p zone ( 110 t o s ever al thous and fe et ) . T he EP A r eac hed i t s concl us i on bas ed on “A ppl i cabl e orR el evantand A p p ro p ria te R e q u ire m e n ts” (A R A R s) a s s e t f o rth in th e F e d e ra l S a f

e D rin k in g W a ter A c t, 42 U . S. C . §§ 300f thru 300j - 26, the N ew M exi co W at erQ ual i tyA ct , N . M . St at . A nn § 74- 6- 1 thru 74- 6- 17, and ac company i ng r egul at i ons . See 40 C . F. R . Par t141 ( s ett i ng n a tio n a l d rin k in g w a ter sta n d a rd s); N .M . A d m in C o d e § 2 0 .6 .2 .3 1 0 3 (se tti n g sta te gr oundw at erpur i tys t andar ds ) ; i d. § 20. 6. 2. 4103 ( s ett i ng s t at e cont ami nat i on abat ement sta n d a rd s). A t th e sa m e tim e , the E P A n o ted th e c o n tam in a tio n u n d e rly in g P lan t 8 3 d id notpos e a s i gni fi cantr i s k t o the ci ty ’ s dr i nki ng w at ers uppl ybeca us e “[ t ] he muni ci pal w a te r s y s te m d ra w s f

ro m th e lo w e r p o rt io n o f th e d e e p g ro u n d w a te r z o n e .” To r e c t i fythe gr ou nd w a t e rc on t a mi na t i on e mana t i ng fr om Pl a nt83 , the EPA e lec ted to e x tra c t th e c o n tam in a ted g ro u n d w a ter th ro u g h e x tra c tio n w e lls a n d tre a t itw ith c a rb o n a d so rp tio n , an d in th e c a se o f th e d e e p e r z o n e , air s trip p in g b e f o re re in jec tin g itA ccor di ng t o the R O D , ai rs tr i ppi ng “oper at es bym i xi ng w at ercont ami nat ed 10 w ith v o la tile c o m p o u n d s w ith a ira llo w in g th e v o la tile c h e m ic a ls to e v a p o ra te in to th e a ir . T he ai ri s col l ect ed as i tl eave s the tr eatm entuni tand pas s ed thr ough a fi l t erw her e the cont ami nant s ar e col l ect ed. ” C arbon ads orpt i on “pas s es cont ami nat ed w at erthr ough act i vat ed ca rbon w her e the cont ami nant s ar e ads orbed ont o the ca rbon. T he cont ami nat ed carbon i s then t aken t o an off s i t e r egene r at i on fac i l i ty . ” The E PA r ecogni zes “pac ked t ow eraer at i on” and “ gr anul aract i vat ed ca rbon” as the “be s tavai l abl e t echnol ogi es ” for tr eat i ng w at ercont ami nat ed w i th s peci fi c V O C s . See 40 C . F. R . § 142. 62. 12 i nt o the aqui fer . T he R O D expl ai ned that“[t ] he l evel of tr eatm enti n the s el ect ed 10 r emedy. . . [m eet s ] the [A R A R s ] forw at ers etbym axi m um cont ami nantl i m i t s . . . for di s char ge t o the gr ound underN M W Q C C [N ew M exi co W at erQ ual i tyC ontr ol C om m i s s i on] r egul at i ons . ” See 42 U . S. C . § 9621( d) ( 2) ( A ) ( di s cus s i ng appl i cat i on of A R A R s ) . T he s el ect ed r emedyal s o i ncl uded gr oundw at erm oni t or i ng both dur i ng and a ft e rc ompl e t i on of

r e medi a t i on t o e ns ur e the r e medy ’ s e ff e c t i ve ne s s . Fi na l l y , the EPA s chedul ed fi ve- y earr evi ew s as r equi r ed byC E R C L A t o as s ur e the r emedyr emai ned pr ot ect i ve of human heal th and the envi r onm ent . N M E I D agr eed w i th the s el ect ed r e me d yi n a l e t t e rt o th e E P A: E I D concur s w i th the r emedyout l i ned i n the dr aft R ecor d of D eci s i on forthe G E /U SA F O per abl e U ni tof the San J os e Super fund s i t e. W hi l e thi s r emedy al one does notaddr es s al l pot ent i al thr eat s t o publ i c hea l th atthe San J os e s i t e, i ti s an i m por t antpartof the over all s tr at egyt o do s o. T he D es i gn R evi ew C om m i t t ee, t o i ncl ude r epr es ent at i ves of af fec t ed agenci es and PR Ps a tthe site , w ill e n su re th a t t h is a n d o th e r re m e d ies a re c o o rd in a ted to a c h iev e site cl eanup. C . Th e r e me d i a l d e s i g n a n d a c t i o n p h a s e o f th e c l e a n u p f

o l l o we d . S e e 4 0 C. F . R.T he r emedi al des i gn and ac t i on phas e i ncl udes devel opi ng the ac tual des i gn of 11 the s el ect ed r emedyand i m pl ement i ng thatr emedythr ough cons truct i on. A per i od of o p e ra tio n a n d m a in ten a n c e f o llo w s. D u rin g th e c o u rse o f th is p h a se , the E P A is resp o n sible fo r en su ri n g that A R A R s are m et. 4 0 C . F . R . § 3 0 0 . 4 3 5 (a), (b)(1 ), (b)(2 ). T he EP A i m pl ement s i t s R O D s i n one of thr ee w ay s . T he EP A m ayhi r e a 12 con tract or t o cleanup the si t e and then sue P R P s t o recov er C E R C L A cost s and d am ages, p r o v i d e d th e c l e a n u p me th o d s a r e c o n s i s t e n twi th CER CLA r e g u l a t i o n s . S e e 4 2 U. S . C. §§ 9604( a) ( 1) , 9607( a) ( 4) ( A ) . T he EP A m ayent eri nt o a s ett l ementw i th a PR P, di r ect i ng the PR P t o r emedi at e the s i t e thr ough pr ocedur es s peci fi ed i n a cons entdecr ee. See i d. § 9622( a) , ( d) . O rthe EP A m ayi s s ue a U A O t o a PR P, r equi r i ng the PR P t o cl ean up the site u sin g m e th o d s s p e c if ied in th e R O D , o r f

a c e f in e s o f $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 p e r d a ya n d tre b le d am ag es. S ee id. §§ 9 6 0 6 (a), (b)(1 ), 9 6 0 7 (c)(3). T he di s tr i ctcourtr eport ed thatG E , the U SA F, and the U SD O E have s har ed the 13 (c o n tin u e d ...) 13 § 3 0 0 .4 3 5 . In Ju n e 1 9 8 9 , the E P A iss u e d a U n ilate ra l A d m in istra tiv e O rd e r (U A O ) to

11 G E t o per form the nec es s aryw or k on O U 2. I n Sept ember1994, G E compl et ed w or k on 12 O U 2 p ursuantt o thatorder. S J- 6, as w el l as one o ther l ess s i gn i fi cant m un i ci pal w el l , S J3, and several pri vate w el l s, w ere s uccessfull yplugged and aban do ned . G E al so estab li sh ed a g rou n d w ater m o n it o ri n g p rog ram as re q u ir ed b ythe R O D . B o th the E P A ’s 2000 and 2005 mem or anda appr ovi ng the fi ve- y earr evi ew s forO U 2 concl uded “the a n a lysis o f

th e d a ta s h o w s th a t th e p lu g g in g a n d a b a n d o n m e n t p ro g ra m w a s e f f e c tiv e . . . . [T]he r emedyforO U 2 has been, and i s expec t ed t o cont i nue t o be, pr ot ect i ve of human h e a lth a n d th e e n v ir o n m e n t.” A tthe s ame t i m e, the EP A i s s ued a s econd U A O t o G E t o cl eanup the cont ami nat i on as s oci at ed w i th Pl ant83 i n a mannercons i s t entw i th the R O D on O U 5 and O U 6. G E agr eed a nd, fol l ow i ng addi t i onal i nves t i gat i on atthe s i t e, began de s i gn of

13( . . . cont i nued) 13 cos tof r emedi al act i vi t i es s urr oundi ng Pl ant83. B as ed on the thr ee PR Ps r el at i ve dur at i on of ow ner s hi p, 9% of the cos tw as al l ocat ed t o G E , 43. 2% w as al l ocat ed t o the U S D O E , a n d 4 7 .8 % w a s a llo c a te d to th e U S A F . S e e N e w M e x ic o v . G e n e ra l E le c . C o ., 3 3 5 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 1 8 5 , 1 1 9 4 n . 5 (D . N . M . 2 0 0 4 ). U nt i l ear l y2000, the s hal l ow zone r emedi at i on s y s t em consi s t ed of s even 14 e xtr a c t i on w e l l s . To i mpr ov e the e ff i c i e nc yof

the s y s t e m, G E i ns t a l l e d wi th EPA a p p r o v a l a n a d d i t i o n a l e x tr a c t i o n wel l whi c h b e c a me o p e r a t i o n a l i n Fe b ru a ry2 0 0 0 . To furtheri m pr ove ef

fi ci ency , G E al s o i ns t al l ed an i nj ect i on w el l w hi ch bec ame oper at i onal i n M ay2000. 14 s hal l ow and dee perzone r emedi at i on s y s t ems i n 1991. T he s hal l ow and dee perzone s y s t ems bec ame oper abl e i n M ay1994 and A pr i l 1996, r es pect i vel y . T oday , the s hal l ow z o n e sy ste m in c lu d e s th irtym o n ito rin g w e lls, eig h t ex tra c tio n w e lls, an in jec tio n w e ll, and a gr oundw at ertr eatm ents y s t em. T he extr act ed gr oundw at eri s convey ed thr ough a 14 du al -cont ai ned pipe t o the treatm ent s y st em w here i ti s treat ed u si ng l i qu i d-phase g ra n u late d a c tiv a ted c a rb o n to a d so rb th e V O C s. F o llo w in g tre a tm e n t, th e w a ter is r ei nj ect ed i nt o the s hal l ow aqui fer . T he EP A , the N ew M exi co D epart m entof E nvi r onm ent( N M E D , form er l yN M E I D ) , and G E eval uat e the ef fec t i venes s of the s y s t em bycol l ect i ng gr oundw at erfr om extr act i on and moni t or i ng w el l s and compar i ng the dat a t o hi s t or i cal dat a pr evi ous l ycol l ect ed. A s r eport ed i n the 2000 and 2005 f i vey earr evi ew r eport s , appr oved byboth E PA and N M E D , V O C conce ntr at i ons i n the g ro u n d w a ter f

ro m th e sh a llo w e x tra c tio n a n d m o n ito rin g w e lls h a v e b e e n ste a d ily d e c re a sin g . T h e e x ten t o f th e c o n tam in a n t p lu m e is d e c re a sin g a s w e ll. B o th re p o rts concl uded: “[T] he Shal l ow Z one G r oundw at erR emedi at i on Sy s t em i s w or ki ng asP rio r to re m e d iatio n , the f o llo w in g six V O C s w e re d e tec ted a b o v e A R A R s in 15 the s hal l ow zone a qui fer : ( 1) 1, 1- di chl or oethane ( 1, 1- D C A ) , ( 2) 1, 1- di chl or oethene ( 1, 1- D C E ) , ( 3) 1, 2- di chl or oethane ( 1, 2- D C A ) , ( 4) tr i chl or oethy l ene ( T C E ) , ( 5) t etr achl or oethy l ene ( per chl or oethy l ene, PC E ) , and ( 6) vi ny l chl or i de ( V C ) . T he 2005 f i v e - y e a rr e v i e w r e p o r ts t a t e s th a ta s o f J u n e 2 0 0 5 , th e o n l yVOCs d e t e c t e d a b o v e ARARs i n the s hal l ow zone a qui ferar e 1, 1- D C A and 1, 1- D C E : “A l l otherV O C s i n the Shal l ow Z on e A qu i fer ground w at er have b een rem ediat ed to l evels below theirres pecti ve A R A R s, o r a re n o t d e te c te d a t a ll in a n yo f th e m o n ito ri n g w e lls a n d e x tr a c tio n w e lls .” In re v iew in g 2 0 0 1 d a ta, G E n o tice d a n in c re a se in V O C c o n c e n tra tio n lev e ls in 16 two mo n i t o r i n g we l l s . Wi th p r i o ra p p r o v a l f r o m th e E P A a n d NM E D, GE i n s t a l l e d two new m on i t ori ng w el l s, tw o n ew i nject i on w el l s, and on e new extr act i on w el l . G E al so upgr aded the dee perzone tr eatm entpl antt o acc om m odat e the new extr act i on and i nject i on w el l s. 15 d e s ig n e d a n d re d u c in g th e V O C c o n c e n tr a tio n s in th e S h a llo w Z o n e g ro u n d w a te r.” 15 G E init ial lyinstall ed n u m ero u s w ell s to ide n ti fythe b o u n d aries o f P lant 8 3 ’s deepe rzone pl um e. T he des i gn obj ect i ves of the dee perzone r emedi at i on s y s t em (a d d re ss in g th e in ter m e d iate a n d d e e p z o n e s a s d e sc rib e d in th e R O D ) in c lu d e d h y d ra u lic contr ol of the dee perzone pl um e and f l us hi ng the V O C s fr om the aqui fert o m eet A R A R s . T he des i gn es t abl i s hed a hy dr aul i c barr i erbetw een the cont ami nantpl um e and the nea r es tci tyw at ers uppl yw el l thr ee- quart er s m i l e t o the ea s t . T oday , the s y s t em cons i s t s of s eventy - ni ne moni t or i ng w el l s , fourhi gh vol um e extr act i on w el l s , tw el ve i nj ect i on w el l s , and a gr oundw at ertr eatm ents y s t em. T he s y s t em oper at es byextr act i ng 16 gr oundw at erand conve y i ng i tvi a dual - cont ai ned pi pe t o the tr eatm entcent er . T he w at er i s then pumped t hr ough tw o ai r - s tr i ppi ng t ow er s on i t s w ayt o tw o gr anul at ed ac t i ve c a rb o n v e ss e ls. O n c e in a h o ld in g tan k , the w a ter is p ip e d th ro u g h a f ilt e r system to r emove par t i cl es . Fi nal l y , the w at ertr avel s t o tw el ve i nj ect i on w el l s w her e i ti s r eturnedP rio r to re m e d iatio n , the f o llo w in g se v e n V O C s w e re d e tec ted a b o v e A R A R s in 17 the dee perzone a qui fer : ( 1) 1, 1- D C A , ( 2) 1, 1- D C E , ( 3) 1, 2- D C A , ( 4) T C E , ( 5) PC E , ( 6) VC, a n d ( 7 ) me th y l - t e r tb u ty l e th e r( M TBE ) . As o f J u n e 2 0 0 5 , th e f

o l l o wi n g f

o u rVOCs w er e det ect ed above A R A R s i n the dee perzone a qui fer : ( 1) 1, 1 D C E , ( 2) 1, 1- D C A , ( 3) T C E , and ( 4) PC E . T he r emai ni ng thr ee V O C s have be en r emedi at ed t o l evel s bel ow th e ir re sp e c tiv e A R A R s o r n o t d e tec ted a t all. 16 t o the dee perzone a qui fer . M oni t or i ng w el l s m oni t orthe pr ogr es s of the r emedi at i on b o th h o riz o n tallya n d v e rtica llyin sid e a n d o u tsid e th e p lu m e b o u n d a rie s. A c c o rd in g to the 2005 fi ve- y earr evi ew r eport : “[T] he D eep Zone G r ound W at erR emedi at i on Sy s t em i s an ef fec t i ve hy dr aul i c contr ol , and oper at es as des i gned t o m ai nt ai n captur e of i m pact ed g ro u n d w a te r i n th e D e e p Z o n e p lu m e .” Si nce s t artup, the dee perzone tr eatm ents y s t em has ope r at ed 24 hour s a dayexce pt forr out i ne mai nt enanc e and unpl anned s t oppages due t o, among ot herthi ngs , i ce form at i on, l i ghtni ng, and hi gh w i nds . A s s t at ed i n the 2000 fi ve- y earr evi ew r eportand r ei t er at ed i n the 2005 r eport : “[T] he V O C pl um e has been c aptur ed bythe D eep Zone R emedi at i on Sy s t em. ” “The ae r i al ext entof the D eep Zone Pl um e i s s hr i nki ng, and c o n c e n tr a t i o n s o f

VOCs h a v e r e d u c e d s i g n i f i c a n t l ys i n c e th e De e p Zo n e P l a n tb e c a me o p e ra tio n a l[ .]” “ T h e tre a tm e n t sy ste m h a s b e e n e f f e c tiv e in re m o v in g c o n stitu e n ts to c o n c e n tra tio n s b e lo w th e A R A R s, a n d w a ter in jec ted b a c k in to th e D e e p Z o n e A q u if e r is i n compl i ance w i th the appl i cabl e di s char ge r equi r ement s . ” “V O C s above A R A R s have notbeen de t ect ed i n anym oni t or i ng orw at ers uppl yw el l s dow ngr adi entof the r emedi at i on s y s t em. ” B oth r eport s concl uded the s hal l ow and dee perzone r emedi at i on 1717

s y s te m s “ a re p ro te c tiv e o f h u m a n h e a lth a n d th e e n v ir o n m e n t.”

D . R ece nt l y , the EP A and N M E D appr oved the 2005 fi ve- y earr evi ew r eportforthe Sout h V al l eys i t e. A l though r emedi at i on cont i nues atO U 5 and O U 6 due t o haza r dous w as t es i n the s ubs ur fac e above cont ami nantl evel s al l ow i ng forunl i m i t ed us e and unr es tr i ct ed expos ur e, the over al l r emedyr emai ns pr ot ect i ve of human heal th and the envi r onm ent . T he EP A ’ s appr oval m emora ndum , dat ed Sept ember2005, i ndi cat es that “[f ] r om s y s t em st artup thr ough J ul y2005, appr oxi m at el y900, 000 gal l ons of gr oundw at er have be en extr act ed and tr eat ed fr om the s hal l ow zone a qui fer[O U 5] . ” “The s hal l ow zone gr oundw at err emedi at i on s y s t em has mi t i gat ed the mi gr at i on of V O C s i n the sa tu ra ted p o rtio n o f

th e sh a llo w z o n e a q u if e r a n d th e siz e o f

th e c o n tam in a n t p lu m e is decr eas i ng. ” To ensur e the s y s t ems cont i nui ng eff ect i venes s , the mem o i ndi cat ed “[ t ] he E PA and N M E D w i l l per i odi cal l ys pl i ti nfl uentand ef fl uents ampl es w i th [G E ] atthe tr e a tm e n t p la n t.” T h e 2 0 0 5 m e m o ’s c o m m e n t o n th e d e e p e r z o n e re m e d iatio n sy ste m w a s s im ilarly favor abl e. Fr om s y s t em st artup thr ough J ul y2005, “over3. 7 bi l l i on gal l ons of gr oundw at erw er e extr act ed, tr eat ed, and r eturned t o the s ubs ur fac e atan ave r age f l ow r at e of ove r900 gal l ons perm i nut e. . . . A ppr oxi m at el y1, 400 pounds of V O C m as s have been r emoved. ” R egar di ng the dee p pl um e, the EP A ’ s m emo re por t ed: “The deep gr oundw at err emedi at i on s y s t em has be en ef fec t i ve i n captur i ng the gr oundw at erN M E ID u n d e rto o k its o w n in v e stig a tio n o f g ro u n d w a ter c o n tam in a tio n d u e to 18 h y d roc arb o n s d isch arg ed fro m v ariou s p etroleu m fa cil it ies i n the S o u th V all ey . S ee su p ra n .8 . N M E ID th e n n e g o tiate d “ H y d ro c a rb o n R e m e d iatio n A g re e m e n ts” w ith P R P s in 1994, r equi r i ng them t o tr eatthe gr oundw at erunder l y i ng thei rfac i l i t i es . See G ener al E l ec. , 335 F. Supp. 2d at1195. T hus , i n a r eal s ens e, cl eanup a tthe South V al l eys i t e has been a j ointop erat i on am on g fed eral and st at e authori t i es. 18 cont ami nantpl um e as s oci at ed w i th O U #6. ” “Fl us hi ng cont i nues t o r educe the conce ntr at i ons of V O C s w i thi n the dee p zone pl um e, as i s evi dence d bythe dec r eas i ng con st i tuen tcon centr at i on s. ” T he E P A con cl ud ed w i th a co m m ent on t he o veral l success of the ongoi ng cl eanup a tthe South V al l eys i t e: I ts houl d be not ed thatthe gr oundw at err emedi al s y s t ems at the South V al l ey Super fund Si t e have been ve ryeff ect i ve i n r ecoveri n g and tr eat i ng appr oxi m at el y4. 5 bi l l i on gal l ons of w at ers i nce the r emedi al s y s t ems w ent on- l i ne. A l m os tthe ent i r e amountof thi s l ar ge vol um e of w at erhas been r eturned t o the aqui fer fr om w hi ch i t w as extr act ed, al l ow i ng the gr oundw at er t o be r eturned bac k t o i t s benef i ci al us e. A s the for egoi ng hi s t oryi l l us tr at es , the St at e of N ew M exi co, thr ough N M E D and i t s p r e d e c e s s o rNM E I D, f r o m th e o u t s e th a s p l a y e d a me a n i n g f u l r o l e i n th e CE RC L Am andat ed r emoval and r es pons e pl an forthe South V al l eySuper fund s i t e – a pl an w hi ch to d a te a p p e a rs to b e a c h iev in g its a im o f re sto rin g th e g ro u n d w a ter in th e S o u th V a lleyto bel ow A R A R s . See 40 C . F. R . § 300. 180 ( s t at i ng “s t at e off i ci al s . . . w i l l part i ci pat e as partof the r es pons e s tructur e”) . N ot abl y , w e fi nd nothi ng i n the r ecor d w hi ch i ndi cat es 18 N M E D c u rre n tlyo p p o se s a n ya sp e c t o f th e o n g o in g c lea n u p w h ich is s c h e d u led to concl ude ar ound 2016. R ather , the EP A has w or ked w i th and addr es s ed the conc erns of N M E D ateverys t age of the cl eanup. T he St at e’ s r ol e has been a nd cont i nues t o beC E R C L A a ls o p ro v id e s f o r c o m m u n ity in p u t th ro u g h o u t th e c le a n u p p ro c e s s . 19 See 42 U . S. C . § 9617 ( addr es s i ng publ i c part i ci pat i on i n cl eanup) . 40 C . F. R . §§ 300. 155, 300. 415( n) , 300. 430( c) , and 300. 435( c) addr es s comm uni tyr el at i ons atthe var i ous s t ages of cl eanup. 19 cons i s t entw i th C E R C L A r egul at i ons w hi ch r equi r e the EP A t o ens ur e “meani ngful and s ubs t ant i al s t at e i nvol vement ” i n haza r dous s ubs t ance r es pons e: “EP A s hal l pr ovi de an oppor tuni tyfors t at e part i ci pat i on i n r emoval , pr e- r emedi al , r emedi al , and enf or cement re sp o n se a c tiv iti e s.” Id . § 3 0 0 .5 0 0 (a ); se e a lso 4 2 U .S .C . § 9 6 2 1 (f ) (a d d re ss in g sta te inv o lvem en t i n h az ard o u s w aste c lean u p ). 19 II. I n addi t i on t o aff

or di ng the St at e of N ew M exi co an opportuni tyt o avai l i t s el f of a fede r al l y - m andat ed cl eanup r es pons e i n the South V al l ey , a form of m andat oryi nj unct i ve r el i ef, C E R C L A empow er ed the St at e t o br i ng an ac t i on agai ns tG E , A C F, and other P R P s fo r na tural reso u rce d am ag es (N R D s) t o the p u b li c’s g rou n d w ater. C E R C L A ’s “natur al r es our ces ” def

i ni t i on i ncl udes “w at er , gr ound w at er , dr i nki ng w at ers uppl i es , and others uch r es our ces bel ongi ng t o, m anage d by , hel d i n trus tby , appert ai ni ng t o, or othe rw i s e c on tr ol l e d b y. . . a nySt a t e [. ] ” 42 U . S. C. § 9 60 1( 16 ) . CE RC LA make s PRPs j oi nt l yand s ever al l yl i abl e notonl yforal l cos t s of r emoval and/ orr emedi al act i on, but al s o for“damages fori nj uryt o, des truct i on of, orl os s of natur al r es our ces , i ncl udi ng the rea so n ab le co sts of

asse ssing su ch injury , d estruc ti o n , o r l o ss . . . . ” Id . § 9 6 0 7 (a)(4)(C ); se e , e.g ., K a lam a z o o R iv e r S tu d yG ro u p v . M e n a sh a C o rp ., 2 2 8 F .3 d 6 4 8 , 6 5 2 -5 3 (6 th20

C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (subject t o the righ t of co n tr ibu ti o n co n tai n ed in § 9 6 1 3 (f)(1), l iabili tyu n d er § 9 6 0 7 ( a ) i s g e n e r a l l yj o i n ta n d s e v e r a l r e g a r d l e s s o f f a u l t ) ; Ca l i f

o rn i a v . M o n tr o s e Ch e m. C orp. , 104 F. 3d 1507, 1518 n. 9 ( 9th C i r . 1997) ( s ubj ectt o the def ens es s etforth i n § 9607( b) , l i abi l i tyunder§ 9607( a) i s j oi ntand s ever al ) . Sect i on 9607( f) ( 1) author i zed the St a t e , thr ou gh i t s “ N a tur a l Res ou r c e s Trus t e e ” ( N RT ) , t o s ue G E, A CF, a nd othe rPRPs for N R D s: I n t he c a s e o f a n i n

j u ry t o , d e s tru c t i o n o f

, o r l o s s o f n a tu r a l r e s o u r c e s under s ubpar agr aph ( C ) of s ubs ect i on ( a) of thi s s ect i on[, ] l i abi l i tys hal l be . . . t o any St at e fornatu ral r es our ces w i thi n the St at e . . . . [T]he author i zed r epr es ent at i ve of a nySt at e, s hal l acton behal f of t he publ i c as trus t ee of s uch natur al r es our ces t o r ecove r s uch dam ages . . . . Sum s r ecove r ed bya St at e as trus t ee unde rthi s s ubs ect i on s hal l be ava i l abl e forus e onl y t o r es t or e, r epl ace , o r ac q u ir e the eq u ivalen t of su ch n atura l reso u rce s b y the S tat e. T h e m ea su re o f d a m a g e s in a n ya c tio n u n d e r su b p a ra g ra p h (C ) o f su b se c tio n (a ) o f

th is s ect i on s hal l notbe l i m i t ed bythe s um s w hi ch can be us ed t o r es t or e orr epl ace such resources. 4 2 U . S . C . § 9 6 0 7 (f)(1). C E R C L A di r ect s N ew M exi co’ s G overnort o appoi nta N R T t o acton behal f of the p u b li c. Id. § 9 6 0 7 (f)(2)(B ). C o n sist en t w ith C E R C L A , the N ew M ex ico L eg isl ature enac t ed the “N atur al R es our ces T rus t ee A ct ” ( N R T A ) i n 1993. See N . M . St at . A nn. §§ 75- 7- 1 thru 75- 7- 5. T he N R T A cr eat ed the “O ffi ce of N atur al R es our ces T rus t ee” (O N R T ) w ith in N M E D . Id . § 7 5 -7 -2 .B . T h e N R T s e rv e s a t th e p le a s u re o f th e G o v e rn o r. I d. §§ 75- 7- 2. A . A m ong the N R T ’ s expr es s dut i es ar e the as s es s m entand col l ect i on of “damages fori nj uryt o, des truct i on of, orl os s of natur al r es our ces , i ncl udi ng br i ngi ng l egal act i ons [. ] ” I d. § 75- 7- 3. A . ( 5) . A n aw ar d of N R D s i n N ew M exi co “s hal l cons i s tofSect i on 9613( g) ( 1) r eads i n r el evantpart : “W i th r es pectt o anyfac i l i tyl i s t ed on 20 the N at i onal Pr i or i t i es L i s t( N PL ) , . . . an ac t i on fordamages underthi s chapt erm us tbe comm ence d w i thi n 3 y ear s aft erthe compl et i on of the r emedi al act i on ( excl udi ng o p e ra tio n a n d m a in te n a n c e a c tiv itie s ) . . . .” 21 thos e amount s cal cul at ed i n acc or dance w i th fede r al l aw , i ncl udi ng . . . the cos tof r es t or at i on, r epl ace m entoracqui s i t i on of equi val entr es our ces , pl us compensa t i on forthe l o s s o f u s e o re n

j o yme n to f

th e n a tu r a l r e s o u r c e s . . . . ” I d . § 7 5 - 7 - 4 . A. C o n sist en t w ith h is du ti es u n d er C E R C L A an d the N R T A , in 1 9 9 9 N ew M ex ico’s N R T ent er ed i nt o t ol l i ng agr eement s w i th s ever al PR Ps, i ncl udi ng G E , the U SA F, and U SD O E , t o del aya C E R C L A - bas ed N R D l aw s ui tw hi l e he a t t empt ed t o negot i at e a s e t t l e me n to f

th e St a t e ’ s NR D cl a i ms . Se e g e n e r a l l yW i l l i a m H . Hy a t t , J r . , J e n n i f e rL. A l l ai r e, & K ary l l an D ods on M ack, N atur al R es our ce D amages : N ew D evel opm ent s atthe St at e Level , SK 057 A L I - A B A 281, 290- 960 ( 2005) . T he N R T bel i eved t ol l i ng a g r e e me n t s we r e n e c e s s a ryd u e t o CER CLA’ s th r e e - y e a rs t a tu t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s o n NRD cl ai m s . See 42 U . S. C . § 9613( g) . A tthe s ame t i m e, the N R T w as s eeki ng fundi ng fr om 20 the N ew M exi co Legi s l atur e fora N R D as s es s m ent . See 43 C . F. R . Par t11 ( cont ai ni ng r egul at i ons r el at i ng t o an N R D as s es s m ent ) ; N . M . St at . A nn. § 75- 7- 5 ( es t abl i s hi ng a N R T fund t o carryoutthe pr ovi s i ons of the N R T A ) . T he N R T appar ent l ybel i eved a N R D as s es s m entpur s uantt o fede r al r egul at i ons w as nece s s aryt o the s ucce s s of the S tate ’s N R D c laim s b e c a u se su c h a ss e ss m e n ts “ h a v e th e f o rc e a n d e f

f e c t o f a re b u ttab le pr es um pt i on on behal f of the trus t ee i n anyadmi ni s tr at i ve orj udi ci al pr ocee di ng” under22

C E R C L A . S ee 4 2 U . S . C . § 9 6 0 7 (f)(2)(C ). T h e re g u lat ion s, p rom u lgated b ythe D ep artm en t of Interior, “p rov ide[ ] a pr ocedur e byw hi ch a [ N R T ] can de t erm i ne compens at i on fori nj ur i es t o natur al r es our ces thathave notbeen norar e expe ct ed t o be addr es s ed byr es pons e ac t i ons conduct ed pur s uantt o [C E R C L A r egul at i ons ] . ” 43 C . F. R . § 11. 10. W hi l e the as s es s m ent pr ocedur es s etouti n Par t11 ar e notm andat ory , a St at e N R T m us tus e them t o obt ai n the r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on cont ai ned i n § 9607( f) ( 2) ( C ) . I d. A ppar ent l y , nei therthe N ew M exi co l egi s l atur e northe new l y - el ect ed A G s aw need f ors uch an a s s es s m ent . A s s ert i ng h e r ro le a s th e S tate o f

N e w M e x ico ’s c h ief

law e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ice r, th e A G f

iled su it a g a in st th e P R P s o n O c to b e r 1 , 1 9 9 9 , ab se n t an yN R D a ss e ss m e n t. A . T he A G r et ai ned i ndepende ntcouns el t o fi l e tw o s epar at e N R D l aw s ui t s r el at i ng t o the South V al l eySuper fund s i t e. T he fi r s t , fi l ed i n fede r al di s tr i ctcourt , al l eged cl ai m s form oneydamages underC E R C L A § 9607( f) ( 1) . See 42 U . S. C . § 9613( b) (g ra n tin g f

e d e ra l d is tr ic t c o u rt s “ e x c lu s iv e o ri g in a l ju ri s d ic tio n ” o f C E R C L A a c tio n s ). A mong a ho s tof

othe rbu s i ne s s a nd go ve rnmen te nt i t i e s , the c ompl a i ntna med GE , A CF, the U SA F, and U SD O E as defe ndant s . T he compl ai ntal l eged ha r m ar i s i ng “fr om the pr es ence , m i gr at i on, and thr eatof furtherm i gr at i on of haz ar dous chemi cal w as t es and others ubs t ance s fr om the oper abl e uni t s w hi ch compr i s e the South V al l eySuper fund Si t e[. ] ” The sui tnamed N ew M exi co’ s N R T as an “i nvol unt arypl ai nt i ff pur s uantt o Fed.O u r in d e p e n d e n t re se a rc h re v e a ls th a t o n N o v e m b e r 5 , 1 9 9 9 , the A G so u g h t a 21 w r i tof m andamus fr om the N ew M exi co Supr eme C our tdecl ar i ng the N R T ’ s t ol l i ng a g r e e me n t s wi th th e P RP s i n v a l i d a n d e n j o i n i n g th e NRT f

r o m i n t e r f

e r i n g i n th e NRD l aw s ui t s . See N ew M exi co ex r el . M adr i d v. T urner , N o. 26035 ( N . M . , fi l ed N ovember5, 1999) . T he courti s s ued the w r i ton D ece m ber14, 1999. W hen def endant s i n the fe der al l a ws u i tmo v e d t o d i s mi s s b a s e d o n th e AG’ s l a c k o f s t a n d i n g t o p u r s u e NRD c l a i ms underC E R C L A , the A G w as back be for e the s t at e s upr eme cour ton A pr i l 17, 2000, see k ing an o rde r directing the N R T to v o lun tari lyjoin h er f ed era l l aw su it . T h e state c o u rt gr ant ed the A G ’ s r eques ton J une 27, 2000, eff ect i vel yr ender i ng defe ndant s ’ s t andi ng a rg u m e n t m o o t. 23 R . C i v. P. 19. ” The com pl ai nti ndi cat ed the A G w oul d “pr ovi de l egal couns el and re p re se n tatio n to th e O N R T p u rsu a n t to th e p ro v isio n s o f [ th e N R T A ].” S e e N .M . S tat. An n . § 7 5 - 7 - 3 . C. T he s econd s ui t , fi l ed i n s t at e di s tr i ctcourt , al l eged va r i ous s t at e s t atut oryand comm on l aw cl ai m s forN R D s , i ncl udi ng tr es pas s , publ i c nui s ance , and negl i gence . T he com plai nt om i t t ed the federal enti t i es, bu totherw i se nam ed the sam e def end ants , i ncl udi ng G E and A C F, as the fe der al s ui t . T he s t at e courtcompl ai nts um m ar i zed the 21 harm gi vi ng r i s e t o the A G ’ s cas e aga i ns tthe PR Ps i n the exa ctm anneras the fe der al c o u rt c o m p lain t. G E a n d A C F p ro m p tlyre m o v e d th e A G ’s s tate a c tio n to f e d e ra l co u rt, w h e re th e d is tr ic t c o u rt , o n its o w n m o tio n , c o n s o lid a te d it w ith th e A G ’s f e d e ra l a c tio n . T he di s tr i ctcourtexpl ai ned: It h a s b e c o m e p lain lya p p a re n t to th e c o u rt th a t th e re a c h o f p lain tiff s’ s tate l a w cl a i ms . . . n e c e s s a r i l yd e p e n d u p o n th e b r e a d th o f th e p l a i n t i f f s ’ CERCLA c laim s . . . a n d o f th e o n g o in g C E R C L A re m e d iatio n p ro g ra m a t t h e S o u th V al l eys i t e. T he tw o act i ons . . . ar e more than “r el at ed, ” more than “a ct i ons i nvol vi ng a comm on ques t i on of l aw o r fact ” – the s cope of one ac t i on ines ca p ab lyd ef

ines the s co p e o f th e o ther.A tone poi nt , the di s tr i ctcourtdes cr i bed the A G ’ s i nces s antpl eadi ng as 22 “ m a k in g a m o c k e ry o f

th e p le a d in g re q u ir e m e n ts ” o f F e d . R . C iv . P . 8 (a ). G e n e ra l E le c ., 335 F. Supp. 2d at1180. O n ce the A G all eg ed fe d era l subject m att er jurisdicti o n b ase d o n C E R C L A ’s 23 N R D pr ovi s i ons i n herfi r s tamended and s ubs equentcons ol i dat ed compl ai nt , anyi ni t i al j ur i s di ct i onal defe ct s i n r emoval w er e cur ed bec aus e a pa r ty“‘ cannotvol unt ar i l yi nvoke, and then di s avow fede r al j ur i s di ct i on. ’ ” A l bertv. Sm i th’ s Food & D rug C ent er s , I nc. , 356 F. 3d 1242, 1247- 49 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng A ki n v. A s hl and C hem. C o. , 156 F. 3d 1030 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 )); a c c o rd B e rn ste in v . L in d -W a ld o c k & C o ., 7 3 8 F .2 d 1 7 9 , 1 8 5 -8 6 (7 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) (Po sn er, J. ). 24 N ew M ex ico v . G en era l E lec. C o . , 3 3 5 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 1 5 7 , 1 1 6 2 (D . N . M . 2 0 0 3 ). D es pi t e fi l i ng an i ni t i al m ot i on t o r emand forw antof s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on, the A G w i thdr ew thatm ot i on and i n J une 2000 fi l ed a f i r s tamended compl ai ntal l egi ng f e d e ra l ju risd ictio n . F o llo w in g a y e a r o f p ro c e d u ra l w ra n g lin g w h ich w e n e e d n o t d e tail her e, the A G i n J ul y2001 fi l ed the “St at e of N ew M exi co’ s C om pl ai nti n the C ons ol i dat ed C as e. ” See i d. at1160- 69 ( pr ovi di ng a det ai l ed pr ocedur al hi s t oryof the ca se). T h e c o m p lai n t al lege d b o th C E R C L A an d stat e law claim s. O v er the n ex t y ea r,

22 23 the ca s e “moved s t eadi l yforw ar d thr ough ext ens i ve di s covery , vol um i nous document pr oduct i on, num er ous depos i t i ons , i nt ens e expe r tw i tnes s and pr etr i al pr epar at i on – al l at the i ns t ance of the St at e of N ew M exi co[. ] ” I d. at1180- 81. D ur i ng the cour s e of a n ext ended pr etr i al confe r ence begi nni ng i n Sept ember 2002, the di s tr i ctcourtbegan t o ques t i on the A G ’ s theoryof the ca s e i n vi ew of the ongoi ng r emedi at i on i n the South V al l ey . T he courtt ol d the St at e “t o r ethi nk i t s theoryof damages . ” I d. at1168. C om m ent i ng on w hatthe courtdes cr i bed as the A G ’ s “expa ns i ve25

damage theor i es , ” the courtopi ned: “I need t o be up fr ontw i th y ou on y ourcomput at i ons on damages . I , fr ankl y , w oul d fi nd i tdi ffi cul tt o s end thos e comput at i ons t o a j ury . ” I d. at 11 6 8 -69 . T h e A G resp o n d ed to the co u rt ’s co n ce rns b yfil ing tw o m o ti o n s: ( 1 ) a m ot i on t o di s m i s s al l C E R C L A cl ai m s and fe der al defe ndant s fr om the N R D l aw s ui t , and ( 2) a mot i on t o r emand t he r emai ni ng s t at e l aw cl ai m s t o s t at e court . T he courtgr ant ed th e A G ’s m o tio n to d ism iss w ith p re ju d ice , ef

f e c tiv e lye n d in g a n ye n tit lem e n t th e S tate ma yh a v e h a d t o NR Ds u n d e rCE RC L A. T he court , how ever , deni ed the mot i on t o r emand t he s t at e l aw cl ai m s bas ed “a t m i ni m um ” on i t s exer ci s e of s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1367. See i d. at 1 1 8 3 -84 . T h e c o u rt ’s reaso n ing w as tw o -fo ld. Se e id. at 11 6 9 -11 8 1 . F ir st, the c o u rt expl ai ned the pr eval ence of C E R C L A - r el at ed ques t i ons i n defi ni ng the s cope a nd cont ent of the r emai ni ng s t at e l aw cl ai m s w ei ghed i n favorof r et ai ni ng j ur i s di ct i on: “[T] he r emai ni ng cl ai m s i nes capabl ym us tbe def i ned i n t erm s of the C E R C L A r emedyand the sco p e a n d ex tent o f th e o n g o ing C E R C L A rem ed iat ion . ” Id . at 11 7 7 . S ec o n d , the c o u rt re a so n e d “ [ c ]o n sid e ra tio n s o f e c o n o m ya n d c o n v e n ien c e ” in a c a se o v e r th re e y e a rs o ld w ei gh ed in favo r of r et ai ning j uri sdi ct i on ov er the st at e l aw cl ai m s: It w ou l d be bu rdensom e i nd eed t o s hift a case w i th dozen s of w i tnesses – m o stlye x p e rts – a n d 8 ,0 0 0 listed e x h ib its, a s w e ll as a re c o rd c o n tain in g n e a rly 1 ,0 0 0 d o c k e ted p lea d in g s, m o tio n s, m e m o ra n d a a n d o th e r p a p e rs a n d n e a rly 3, 000 pages of hea r i ng tr ans cr i pt s , t o a s t at e tr i al j udge havi ng no backgr ound orfami l i ar i tyw i th the ca s e. Id . at 1 1 8 1 . A t th e A G ’s r e q u e st, th e d istric t co u rt su b se q u e n tlyc e rtifie d its d e c isio n toM ore part i cular l y , the d i stri ctcou rtdescri bed the A G ’s dem and as fol l ow s: 24 A s of Janu ary20 04 , the P l ai n t i ffs dem and ov er $1. 2 b i l l i on do l l ars i n cash c o m p e n s a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g $ 6 0 9 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 a s th e c o s to f w a t e rr i g h t s t o n e a r l y a quart er - m i l l i on acr e- fee tof pot abl e w at er thatl i kel yw i l l neverbe pur chas ed, and up t o $609, 000, 000 forthe cons truct i on of a 289, 500 acre-foot “ re p lac e m e n t” s u rf

a c e sto ra g e re se rv o ir th a t li k e lyw ill n e v e r b e b u ilt . G ener al E l ec. , 335 F. Supp. 2d at1231 n. 95. 26 cont i nue exe r ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on overthe ca s e fori nt er l ocut oryappea l pur s uantt o 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 2 (b ). In M a y2 0 0 3 , w e d e n ied th e A G ’s “ P e tit io n f o r P e rm iss io n to A p p e a l” under§ 1292( b) w i thoutcomm ent . See N ew M exi co v. G ener al E l ec. C o. , N o. 03- 500, O rde r at 1 (1 0 th C ir . , M ay1 3 , 2 0 0 3 ). B . O verthe r emai ni ng cour s e of the l i t i gat i on, the di s tr i ctcourti s s ued a tr i l ogyof op i nions befo re ul t i m at el ygrant i ng sum m aryj ud gm ent t o G E and A C F . T he fir st opi ni on, i s s ued i n A pr i l 2004 and compr i s i ng 145 pages , s oughtt o defi ne the s cope of tr i abl e i s s ues ar i s i ng fr om the A G ’ s r emai ni ng s t at e l aw cl ai m s , namel y , ( 1) comm on l aw tr es pas s , ( 2) comm on l aw publ i c nui s ance , ( 3) s t atut orypubl i c nui s ance , and ( 4) comm on l a w n e g l i g e n c e . S e e Ge n e r a l El e c . , 3 3 5 F . S u p p . 2 d a t1 2 2 2 . Byth i s t i me , th e AG’ s NRD demand had fal l en fr om over$4 bi l l i on t o over$1. 2 bi l l i on – cas h compensa t i on earm arked forthe St at e’ s gener al tr eas uryfund. See i d. at1231 & n. 95. 24 D ist ing u ishing b etw ee n p ri v ate p rop ertyri g h ts an d p u b li c trust i n terests, the c o u rt fi rs theld the A G cou l d n ot m ai ntai n a tr espass act i on un der N ew M exico l aw againstN ew M exi co’ s s t atut orypr ohi bi t i on agai ns tw at erpol l ut i on appea r s i n the 25 S tate ’s c rim in a l co d e a t N .M . S tat. A n n . § 3 0 -8 -2 : “P o llu tin g w a ter c o n sis ts o f k n o w in g ly and unl aw ful l yi ntr oduci ng anyobj ectors ubs t ance i nt o anybodyof publ i c w at ercaus i ng i tt o be off

ens i ve ordanger ous forhum an orani m al cons um pt i on orus e. Pol l ut i ng w at er c o n s titu te s a p u b lic n u is a n c e .” 27 G E orA C F. I d. at1231- 35. T he courtnot ed the A G had br oughts ui tnott o pr ot ect p riv a te p ro p e rtyrig h ts, b u t to p ro tec t “th e S tate ’s b ro a d e r so v e re ig n a n d p u b lic trus t/par ens patr i ae i nt er es t s ” i n the publ i c’ s r i ghtt o benef i ci al us e of gr oundw at er“the stew ard sh ip o f w h ich is en tru sted to the S tat e.” Id . at 12 3 4 -35 . T h ese interests, the c o u rt re a so n e d , fe ll o u tsid e th e sc o p e o f p ro tec tio n w h ich th e law o f tre sp a ss tra d iti o n a lly aff or ded pr i vat e l andow ner s . N ext , the courthel d the A G coul d pur s ue cl ai m s of co m m o n law an d statu toryp u b li c n u isan ce “to re m ed ythe a ll eg ed injuryto the p u b li c’s gr oundw at erand t o vi ndi cat e the St at e’ s i nt er es ti n m aki ng thatgr oundw at eravai l abl e for p u b l i c u s e . ” I d . a t1 2 3 5 . T h e AG’ s r i g h tt o p u r s u e p u b l i c n u i s a n c e c l a i ms a g a i n s tGE 25 and A C F, how ever , w as l ar gel yi l l us ory( atl eas tas faras the A G w as conce rned) b e c a u se , ac c o rd in g to th e c o u rt, N e w M e x ico law lim ited th e a v a ilab le r e m e d yto in ju n c tiv e re lie f

in th e f o rm o f n u is a n c e a b a te m e n t a n d /o r r e c o v e ry o f re s to ra tio n c o s ts . S e e id . at 1 2 3 7 -1 2 4 4 , 1 2 5 1 . F in a lly , the c o u rt h e ld N e w M e x ico law e n tit led th e A G to m a in tain a n e g lig e n c e a c tio n a g a in st G E a n d A C F f o r m o n e yd a m a g e s “ lim ited to r eas onabl e compens at i on forthe ac tual and unavoi dabl e cons equenc es of an i nj ury - i n- fac t to th e S tate ’s in ter e sts , fu rth e r lim ited b yth e d e g re e o f f a u lt, if a n y , p ro p e rlya ttribu tab le t o the w r ongful conduct[of non- part i es ] . ” I d. at1251.28

T h e re m aind er o f th e d istri ct co u rt ’s A p ri l 20 0 4 o p inion ad d resse d the A G ’s i n jury and damage cl ai m s . T he opi ni on w el l des cr i bes the A G ’ s num er ous theor i es of r el i ef a nd w e nee d notdet ai l them her e. I m por t ant l y , the courtr ej ect ed the A G ’ s “mar ketval ue r epl ace m entcos t ” and “ l os s of us e” da m age theor i es i n favorof a “ cos tof r es t or at i on” th e o ry . F irst, ac c o rd in g to th e c o u rt, “th e M id d le R io G ra n d e U n d e rg ro u n d W a ter B a sin w as and i s al r eadyful l yappr opr i at ed, l eavi ng the St at e unabl e t o m ake a ddi t i onal w at er avai l abl e forappr opr i at i on. ” I d. at1213. I n otherw or ds , the cha nge i n the poi ntof di ver s i on fr om SJ- 6 t o B - 4 di d notcons t i tut e a l os s of us e bec aus e the s ame am ountof gr oundw at erfr om the s ame aqui ferr emai ned ava i l abl e forus e, as i l l us tr at ed bythe a b s e n c e o f

a n y c l a i m b y w a t e rr i g h t s h o l d e r s o ru s e r s i n th e S o u th V a l l e y: Pl ai nt i ffs ar e nother e as appr opr i at or s orus er s of w at er ; nor ar e t heyher e on behal f of oth e rwat e rr i g h t s h o l d e r s o rwat e ru s e r s . Th e e n t i tyth a to n ce d iv e rte d g ro u n d w a ter f

ro m th e S o u th V a lley w e lls to b e n e f icia l u se – th e C ity of A l buquer que – i s not her e. T he ci ty ’ s r i ghtt o appr opr i at e gr oundw at erhas been s at i s fi ed bychangi ng the poi ntof di ver s i on t o anotherw el l ( the B ur t on # 4 W e ll) tha t p u m p s g ro u n d w a ter f ro m th e sa m e a q u if

e r, an d th e c itya ss e rts no cl ai m fordamages i n thi s act i on. I d. at1202- 03. Second, the courtrul ed mar ketval ue r epl ace m entcos tw as an i nappr opr i at e meas ur e of da m ages beca us e the A G fai l ed t o pr es ent“s i gni fi cantpr obat i ve evi dence ” es t abl i s hi ng the perm anentand t ot al l os s of the South V al l ey ’ s cont ami nat ed g ro u n d w a ter : “D a m a g e a n a ly sis b a se d o n ‘m a rk e t v a lu e ’ re p lac e m e n t co st n e c e ss a rily as s um es . . . a compl et e l os s of the r es our ce thathas been i nj ur ed, and pr oves t o be i rr el evantt o the meas ur e of da m ages . . . w her e a va l uabl e us e maybe r es t or ed thr ough29

r emedi at i on. ” I d. at1217- 18. I ns t ead, the courthel d the cos tof r es t or at i on w as the appr opr i at e meas ur e of d am ag es b ec au se, am o n g o ther rea so n s, su ch m ea su re w as c o n sist en t w ith C E R C L A ’s rem edial obj ect i ves t o repai r and rest ore con t am i nated natur al res ou rces : P l ai nti ffs m ayseek an aw ard o f dam ages i n an am ou nt suffici ent t o rei m bu rs e the S t at e of N ew M exico for si t e i nv est i gati on and othe r “ respo nse cost s” in c u rre d b yth e S tate in c o n n e c tio n w ith a p ro v e n in ju ryto th e S tate ’s in ter e sts atthe South V al l eySi t e, and anycos t s of r es torat i on of the gr oundw at erat S o u th V a l l e y a l r e a d y i n c u rr e d b y th e S t a t e w i th r e s p e c tt o th a ti n j u ry. P lain tiff s, o n b e h a lf

o f th e S tate o f

N e w M e x ico in its c a p a c itya s p u b lic trus t ee, m ayal s o r ecove rdamages i n the am ount of futur e cost s of r es t or at i on as es t abl i s hed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , s ai d damages t o be hel d i n trus t forthe benef i tof the publ i c, forthe ex p ress purpos e of pa y i ng forthe ac tual re m e d iatio n a n d re sto ra tio n o f th e a f f e c ted g ro u n d w a ter b e n e a th th e S o u th V al l eySi t e. I d. at1263. C . T he di s tr i ctcourtdel i ver ed i t s s econd opi ni on i n M ay2004. See N ew M exi co v. G ener al E l ec. C o. , 335 F. Supp. 2d 1266 ( D . N . M . 2004) . T hatopi ni on addr es s ed the p rop o sed test im o n yo f n u m ero u s ex p ert w itn esse s, inclu d ing the testi m o n yo f th e A G ’s th re e p ri n c ip a l e x p e rt s , D a v id B ro o k s h ir e , S te p h e n J o h n s o n , a n d D e n n is W illia m s . P ursuantt o G E and A C F ’s m oti on , the co urtexcluded l arge po rt i on s of t he ex pert s’ t es t i m onyas i rr el evantt o the i s s ues of i nj uryand damage. C ons i s t entw i th i t s pr ece di ng opi ni on, the courtfi r s thel d D r . B r ooks hi r e’ s “ana l y s i s and opi ni ons conce rni ng the m a rk e t v a lu e re p lac e m e n t co st o f a v o lu m e o f

g ro u n d w a ter to tallya n d p e rm a n e n tlylo st toInteres ti n g ly , o n e o f G E ’s en g inee ri n g ex p erts, Jo h n C o n n o r, q u esti o n ed D r. 26 W il li am s u se o f a m o d el t o q u an ti fythe S tat e’s d am ag es. A cc o rdin g to M r. C o n n o r: [ T ]h e re ’s s o m u c h d a ta a t [ th e S o u th V a lley ] site w e d o n ’ t n e e d to m o d e l it . W e u s e mo d e l s t o p r e d i c t th i n g s we d o n ’ t k n o w. W e k n o w wh e r e th e p l u me i s her e. T her e ar e over615 w el l s , 6, 520 gr oundw at ers am p l es , 217, 000 l abor at oryanal y s i s , over1, 100 s oi l bor i ngs have been dr i l l ed. T hi s i s one of th e m o st in ten se lyin v e stig a ted site s in th is c o u n try , in th e w o rld . It’s v e ryw e ll under s t ood. Y ou don’ tneed a m odel w hen y ou know w hat ’ s goi ng on. (c o n tin u e d ...) 30 us e has no bear i ng upon damages t o be meas ur ed bythe cos tof r es t or at i on of the af fec t ed gr oundw at ert o us e as dr i nki ng w at er . ” I d. at1276. T he courtnextexcl uded the t es t i m onyof M r . J ohns on r egar di ng the cos tof r epl aci ng the s t or age c apac i tyof the co n tam inated p o rt ion o f th e a q u ifer w ith a larg e su rfa ce storag e re serv o ir . Id. T h e c o u rt e x c lu d e d M r. Jo h n so n ’s te stim o n yb a se d o n its p rio r ru lin g th a t th e S tate h a d n o leg a lly co g n izab le i n terest i n the S o u th V all eyaq u ifer ap art fro m the g rou n d w ater. T h e c o u rt had conc l uded the St at e di d notow n the aqu i fer as a “natural res ou rce” i n the sam e sense i tow ned the publ i c w at er s : “A bs entpr oof of s om e pos s es s oryow ner s hi p i nt er es ti n land atthe South V al l ey– t i t l e t o the s ur fac e ors ubs ur fac e es t at e, a r es ervat i on of m i ner al s , or th e lik e – th e S tate h a s n o leg a llyc o g n iza b le in ter e st in th e a q u if e r b e n e a th th e S o u th V al l eys i t e. ” G ener al E l ec. , 335 F. Supp. 2d at1205. D r. W il li am s p rop o sed test im o n yfa red n o b ett er tha n h is pred ec esso rs’. D r. W ill iam s re lied o n se lec ted d a ta to c o n stru c t a m o d e l o f a c o n tam in a n t p lu m e in th e S o u th V al l ey“ci r ca 1992. ” See G ener al E l ec. , 335 F. Supp. 2d at1278. H e then combi ned the 26( . . . cont i nued) 26 G ener al E l ec. , 335 F. Supp. at1302 n. 69. 31 es t i m at ed vol um e of hi s m odel pl um e w i th the es t i m at ed vol um e of a “buff erzone” neede d t o i m m obi l i ze the pl um e t o cal cul at e ( 1) the t ot al vol um e of in situ gr oundw at er w hi ch the cont ami nat i on i m pact ed and ( 2) the l os t“s afe y i el d” of pot abl e gr oundw at er fro m the S o u th V all eyaq u ifer. I d . at 12 7 9 . T h e c o u rtfo u n d n u m ero u s p rob lem s w ith D r. W i l l i a ms ’ a p p r o a c h . F i r s t , Dr . W i l l i a ms a c k n o wl e d g e d h i s p r o j e c t e d p l u me v o l u me inclu d ed sign ifi ca n t no n -pa rtyco n tam ination em an ati n g o u tsi d e P lant 8 3 . S ec o n d , D r. W i l l i ams m ade no pr oj ect i on as t o w hatpor t i on of hi s pr oj ect ed pl um e fe l l w i thi n the s c o p e o f th e o n g o i n g r e me d i a t i o n . Th i r d , Dr . W i l l i a ms p r o j e c t e d “ b u f

f e rz o n e ” v o l u me w as i ncons i s t entw i th the EP A ’ s ongoi ng r emedi at i on. I n otherw or ds , anyvol um e of wa t e rn e e d e d t o i mmo b i l i z e th e p l u me wo u l d b e r e l e v a n t“ o n l yi f th e c o n t a mi n a t e d p l u me vol um e i s tr eat ed as t ot al l yand perm anent l yl os tand the r emedychos en t o addr es s the r es ul t i ng publ i c hea l th r i s ks i s the pas s i ve cont ai nm entof the che m i cal cont ami nant pl um e. ” I d. at1286. F in a lly , D r. W ill iam s f

a iled to a c c o u n t f

o r re stric tio n s th e N e w M e x ico S tate E ngi neerhad pl ace d on furtherextr act i on of gr oundw at erfr om the M i ddl e R i o G r ande U nd ergr ou nd W at er B asi n. S ee i d. at12 94 -95. T he co urtcon cl ud ed D r. W i l l i am s’ es t i m at es of l os ts afe y i el d – hy dr ol ogi cal l yacc ur at e ornot– di d notaddr es s the s emi nal i s s ue of w hetherthe gr oundw at erbenea th the South V al l eycoul d be made avai l abl e for32

a p p ro p ri a tio n a n d th u s w a s lo s t to f u rt h e r a p p ro p ri a tio n b e c a u s e o f th e c o n ta m in a tio n . T he ava i l abi l i tyof w at erfr om underneath the South V al l ey , the courtexpl ai ned, turned on “the gr oundw at ervol um e of the ent i r e aqui fertr eat ed as a uni t , and coul d notbe loca li ze d to a p o rt ion o f th e a q u ifer h av ing n o asc ertaina b le ge o h y d rolo g ical bo u n d ary di s t i ngui s hi ng i tfr om the r es tof the M i ddl e R i o G r ande Basi n. ” I d. at1295. D . W ith the S tat e’s c ase sign ifi ca n tl yd im inishe d , the d istri ct co u rtd eli v ere d it s third and fi nal opi ni on i n J une 2004. B ythi s t i m e, the A G had narr ow ed hercl ai m fordamages t o thos e “notr ecove r abl e underC E R C L A forgr oundw at ercont ami nat i on ‘ out s i de’ the

‘ box thatG E and the EP A ar e w i l l i ng t o r emedi at e’ – thati s , the ‘ box’ defi ned bythe i nt ended s cope of

the exi s t i ng E PA - or der ed r emedi at i on. ” N ew M exi co v. G ener al E l ec. C o . , 3 2 2 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 2 3 7 , 1 2 4 3 ( D . N . M . 2 0 0 4 ) . T h u s th e “ c o r e o f th e c o n tr o v e r s y” b e tw e e n th e p a rties b e c a m e th e in ten d e d sc o p e o f C E R C L A -m a n d a ted re m e d ial e f f o rts in the South V al l ey , eff

or t s the A G aft era dec ade de s cr i bed as “w oeful l yi nadequa t e. ” See i d. at1248. T he A G r es t ed herl at es ttheoryof r ecove ryon the pr es ence of a “ deep, deep” cont ami nantpl um e bene ath the South V al l eySi t e, “hundr eds of fe etbel ow the r eac h of the exi s t i ng r emedi at i on s y s t em, ” and out s i de the s cope of the ongoi ng r emedi at i on. I d. at 1 2 5 3 . O n c e a g a in , th e c o u rtf o u n d th e A G ’s p ro o f

“ w o e f u lly in a d e q u a te .” T o s uppor thertheory , the A G poi nt ed t o a r ece ntexpans i on of the Pl ant83 r emedi al s y s t em spaw ned bys ampl e dat a fr om the s y s t em’s m oni t or i ng w el l s det ect i ngI n thi s r es pect , the di s tr i ctcourtobs erved: 27 U n c o n tro v e rte d f

a c ts in th is re c o rd r e f

le c t th a t th e P lan t8 3 /G e n e ra l E lec tric s y s t em has a l r eadybeen e xpanded t o t ake i nt o acc ountad d it ional cont aminat i on evi dence d bys ampl e dat a fr om m or e r ece nt l yi ns t al l ed m oni t or i ng w el l s . I n ear l y2000, the gr oundw at erm oni tori ng pr ogr am d e te c te d c o n tam in a tio n in a n e w lyin sta lled w e ll. . . . T h is d e m o n stra ted to E PA that“the moni t or i ng s y s t em i s eff ect i ve i n s how i ng thati f ther e ar e any conce nt r a t i o n s , th e ya r e p i c k e d u p a n d d e t e c t e d . And o n c e we h a v e the d e tec tio n s, w e tak e th e a p p ro p ria te s tep s to d e a l w ith th e m .” A c c o rd in g ly , in 2003, G E expande d i t s exi s t i ng r emedi al s y s t em byi ns t al l i ng a new extr act i on w el l , tw o new i nj ect i on w el l s , and an a ddi t i onal m oni t or i ng w el l , al l appr oved b yE P A a n d NM E D. G ener al E l ec. , 322 F. Supp. 2d at1250 ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ; s ee s upr a n. 16. 33 ad d it ion al co n tam ination o u tsi d e the p ri o r sco p e o f re m ed iat ion . T h e c o u rt , h o w ev er, 27 view ed such evidence as proo f of the o ng oing rem ediat i on ’s effecti ven ess: I n eff ect , then, Pl ai n ti ffs r el yupon s peci fi c fa ct s s how i ng thatthe exi s t i ng EP A r e me d i a l s y s t e m is det ect i ng furthercont ami nat i on and is a d d re s s in g it byaddi ng addi t i onal extr act i on and moni t or i ng w el l s as s uppo r tforan i nference thatthe sy st em i s notdet ect i ng and nottr eat i ng cont ami nat i on, an i nfer ence thatther e y et exi s t s undet ect ed “deep, deep” cont ami nat i on thatthe s y s t em does notand w il l n o t t r eat . V i ew ed thr ough Pl ai nt i ffs ’ ey es , di r ect e v id e n c e o f

th e sy ste m ’s r e m e d ial e f f ica c yb e c o m e s in f

e re n tial p ro o f

o f its d e f i c i e n c y. * * * M uch l i ke Scot l and’ s famed L och N es s m ons t er , the Pl ai nt i ffs ’ “dee p, deep cont ami nant p lum e” is bel i eved t o be “dow n ther e s om ew her e, ” and ha s not been c oncl us i vel ypr oven nott o e x i s t , b u ti t s pr op on e n t s h a v e y e tt o c o me f o rw a rd w ith sig n if

ica n t p ro b a tiv e a d m iss ib le e v id e n c e o f sp e c if ic f a c ts a f f irm a tiv e lyd e m o n stra tin g th a t it does e x ist. I d. at1255- 56 ( footnot e omi t t ed) . R ecogni zi ng the St at e of N ew M exi co, thr ough N M E D , r emai ns an ac t i ve part i ci panti n the over s i ghtof the EP A ’ s oper abl e uni t s atthe34

S o u th V a lleyS ite, th e d istric t co u rt q u e stio n e d th e S tate ’s f a ilu re to d rill i ts o w n w e lls to ver i fythe exi s t ence of cont ami nat i on bey ond the s cope of the exi s t i ng s y s t em. I n the end, the courtfound the A G ’ s “dee p, deep” pl um e theoryj us tthat– a theoryuns uppor t ed by fac t s , or , i n the court ’ s ow n w or ds , “a c onceptbui l tl ar gel yupon conj ectur e masque r adi ng as i nfer ence . ” I d. at1256. T he di s tr i ctcourtal s o concl uded the A G fai l ed t o r ai s e anygenui ne i s s ue of ma t e r i a l f

a c tr e g a r d i n g h e r“ n a rr o we r , s t a t i c v i e w” o f th e i n t e n d e d s c o p e o f

th e CE RC L Am a n d a ted re m e d iatio n . T h e c o u rt re a so n e d th a t d e f in in g th e sc o p e o f

re m e d iatio n so lely i n t erm s of the curr entoper at i on i gnor ed the l anguage of the R O D forO U 5 and O U 6, as w el l as the “Pl ant83/ G ener al E l ectr i c s y s t em’s demonstr at ed abi l i tyt o m oni t orfor c o n tam in a tio n o v e r a n e x ten d e d a re a a n d to e x p a n d a n d a d ju st in lig h t o f

c re d ib le s a m p le dat a evi denci ng the pr es ence of addi t i onal cont ami nat i on i n need of tr eatm ent . ” I d. at 1 2 5 7 . T h e re c o rd , ac c o rd in g to th e c o u rt, “in d ica tes th a t th e E P A ’s s e lec ted re m e d y. . . is i ntended t o ad dress a llcont ami nat i on atoremanat i ng fr om the Pl ant83 s i t e. ” I d. 1248. M or e i m por t ant l y , the A G had fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h the pr es ence of any cont ami nat i on i n the South V al l eybey ond the r eac h of C E R C L A and the EP A ’ s r emedi al pl an, thus l eavi ng the A G w i thouta ca s e: T h e a rra yo f

e x istin g re m e d ial a c tio n s a t S o u th V a lley– a c tio n s th a t th e S tate has i ni t i at ed, appr oved of, acqui es ced i n and agr eed t o – have l ar gel yoccupi ed the fi el d, l eavi ng l i t t l e orno r oom forthe oper ati o n of the j udi ci al damages r emedythatPl ai nt i ffs s eek. T he i nt ended sc ope of the EP A - or der ed r emedy e m b ra c e s a ll o f th e c o n tam in a tio n a ttribu tab le to th e P lan t 8 3 f a c ili ty . . . . A ll of these r em edial sy st em s un dert ake t o cl ean up groun dw at er suffici entlytoW e a re w e ll aw a re th a t N R D a ss e ss m e n t is a c o stlyp ro p o sitio n . A c c o rd in g to 28 tw o comm ent at or s , aft eri t s 1986 amendm ent s , C E R C L A “ca s ttrus t ees adr i ftt o fi nance thei row n damage as s es s m entbefor e fi l i ng cl ai m s agai ns tpol l ut er s – a cos t l ypr opos i t i on, gi ven thatdamage as s es s m ent s typi cal l ycos tm i l l i ons of dol l ar s . T hi s l ack of fundi ng has cr eat ed a vi r tual l yi ns ur m ount abl e obs t acl e cons i der i ng thatagenc ybudget s have h isto ric a llya u th o riz e d little o r n o f u n d in g f o r N R D a ss e ss m e n ts.” G in a M . L a m b e rt & A nthonyR . C has e, R emedy i ng C E R C L A ’ s N atur al R es our ce D amages Pr ovi s i on: I ncorpor at i on of the Publ i c Trus tD octr i ne I nt o N atur al R es our ce D amage A ct i ons , 11 V a. E n v tl. L . J. 3 5 3 , 3 7 1 -7 2 (1 9 9 2 ) (f o o tn o tes o m itt e d ). S til l, giv e n th e A G ’s o rig in a l m u lti - (c o n tin u e d ...) 35 s at i s fyboth the fe der al dr i nki ng w at ers t andar ds a n dth e N M W Q C C abat ement r egul at i ons – the end r es ul tthatPl ai nt i ffs i ns i s ttheydes i r e t o achi eve. I d. at1271. W her eupon, the courtgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o D efe ndant s G E and A C F on t he A G ’ s s t at e l aw cl ai m s . See Fed. R . C i v. P. 56. O urr evi ew of thatgr anti s de n o v o . S ee A d am so n v . U N U M L ife In s. C o . , 4 5 5 F . 3 d 1 2 0 9 , 1 2 1 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). III . T h ro u g h o u t th e c o u rse o f th is c h ro n icle , the S tate o f N e w M e x ico h a s a v a iled itse lf o f f e d e ra l leg isla tiv e a n d e x e c u tiv e a u th o rityto c o m p e l th e P R P s, in c lu d in g D e f e n d a n ts G E and A C F, t o cl ean up thei rm es s i n the South V al l ey . D ur i ng s uch cour s e, N ew M e x i c o ’ s NR T , b a c k e d b ya n d c o n s i s t e n twi th h i s d u t i e s u n d e rb o th f e d e r a l a n d s t a t e l a w, began hi s pur s ui tof N R D s agai ns tthe PR Ps. See s upr a, at18- 21. I n m i d cour s e, the St at e A G deci ded s he had a bett erpl an t o benef i tthe publ i c tr eas ury , and, atl eas ti n the opi ni on of s om e, us urped the author i tyof the St at e’ s N R T and j um ped s hi p. See B en N eary , J udge D i s m i s s es W at erPol l ut i on L aw s ui t , Sant a Fe N ew M exi can, M ay13, 2004, atB - 1. W i thoutanyC E R C L A - bas ed N R D as s es s m entt o r el yon, s ee 43 C. F. R . Par t11, 28( . . . cont i nued) 28 b ill io n d o llar c laim a g a in st G E a n d A C F , a f e w m ill io n d o llars se e m s n o t so sig n if ica n t a co st t o take ad v an tage o f C E R C L A ’s reb u tt ab le pre su m p ti o n o f N R D s, esp ec ial lyw h ere th e re a s o n a b le c o s ts o f

a s s e s s m e n t a re re c o v e ra b le f ro m P R P s . S e e 4 2 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 7 (a)(4)(C ), (f)(2)(C ). W e n e e d n o t ad d re ss in a n yd e tail th e S tate ’s a rg u m e n t th a t, on c e th e S tate 29 d ism iss e d its f

e d e ra l cla im s w ith p re

ju d ice , the d istric t co u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in choos i ng t o exer ci s e s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on overi t s r emai ni ng s t at e l aw cl ai m s . See 28 U . S . C . § 1 36 7(a) . F or the reasons st at ed in i t s opini on , the d i stri ctcou rtm ost a ss u re d lyd id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in re tain in g ju risd ictio n . A t th e tim e o f d ism iss a l, p rin c ip les o f

e c o n o m ya n d f

a irn e ss f a r o u tw e ig h e d th e in ter e st in c o m ityw h ich th e S tate ra is e d to ju s tif

ya re m a n d to s ta te c o u rt . S e e G e n e ra l E le c ., 3 3 5 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 1 1 8 0 -8 1 . Fur therm or e, w e vi ew the St at e’ s bel at ed di s m i s s al of i t s fede r al cl ai m s , onl yaft erthe d istric t co u rt e x p re ss e d sk e p ticism o v e r th e v a lid ityo f its d a m a g e c a lcu latio n , as in a ll l i kel i hood a mani pul at i ve t act i c des i gned t o achi eve a r emand t o s t at e court . See C arnegi e- M el l on U ni v. v. C ohi l l , 484 U . S. 343, 357 ( 1988) ( “A di s tr i ctcourtcan cons i derw hetherthe pl ai nt i ff ha s engage d i n anym ani pul at i ve t act i cs w hen i tdeci des wh e th e rt o r e ma n d a c a s e . ” ) . L a s t l y , th e e f f e c twh i c h f

e d e r a l l a w, n a me l yCE RC L A, m i ghthave upon the s cope of the St at e’ s N R D cl ai m al s o w ei ghed i n favorof r et ai ni ng j ur i s di ct i on. B eca us e the di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l yexer ci s ed s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on under § 1 3 6 7 ( a ) , we n e e d n o td e c i d e wh e th e rCER CLA’ s i n v o l v e me n twi th th e s t a t e l a w c l a i ms w a s s u f f ic ie n t to w a rr a n t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s in d e p e n d e n t e x e rc is e o f f e d e ra l ju ri s d ic tio n . (c o n tin u e d ...) 36 the St at e undert ook the ar duous t as k of pr ovi ng as an i ni t i al m att ernatur al r es our ces in ju ry o u ts id e th e in te n d e d s c o p e o f a c o m p re h e n s iv e , C E R C L A -m a n d a te d re m e d ia tio n . T he St at e al s o confr ont ed the pr obl em of re s tr i ct i ons w hi ch both C E R C L A and the N R T A im p o se u p o n the m ea su re o f d am ag es e v en su p p o sing so m e re d ressa b le i n jury re m a in s. T h e se a re th e o v e rly in g c o n c e rn s w h ich lea d u s, lik e th e d istric t co u rt, t o concl ude the St at e, atl eas tfornow , i s ent i t l ed t o no r el i ef on i t s N R D cl ai m ar i s i ng outof gr oundw at ercont ami nat i on i n the South V al l ey . W e begi n bydefi ni ng the s cope of the S t a t e ’ s NRD c l a i m. 29( . . . cont i nued) 29 See G r abl e & Sons M et al Pr od. , I nc. v. D arue Eng’g & M fg. , 125 S. C t . 2363, 2366- 67 ( 2005) ( r ecogni zi ng that“i n cert ai n cas es fede r al ques t i on j ur i s di ct i on w i l l l i e overs t at elaw claim s tha t i m p li ca te si g n ifi ca n t fed era l i ssu es” ). T he St at e makes m uch ado ove ri t s s uppos ed abi l i tyt o pur s ue thi s act i on not 30 on l yi n it s capacityas pub l i c t rust ee of the S t at e’s groun dw at ers , bu tal so as par ens patr i ae t o r epai rharm t o i t s “quas i - s over ei gn” i nt er es ti n thos e gr oundw at er s . See Sat s ky v. Par amount C om m c’ ns , I nc. , 7 F. 3d 1464, 1469 ( 10th C i r . 1993) . T he doctr i ne of par ens patr i ae i s a s t andi ng conce ptr atherthan one of s ubs t ant i ve r ecove ry . See A l fr ed L . Snapp & Son, I nc. v. Puer t o R i co ex r el B ar ez, 458 U . S. 592, 600- 08 ( 1982) ; 13 C har l es A . W r i ght , A r thurR . M i l l er , & E dw ar d H . C ooper , Feder al Pr act i ce a nd Pr ocedur e § 3531. 11 ( 1984 & Supp. 2006) . T he doctr i ne does notcr eat e anycaus e of (c o n tin u e d ...) 37 A . N o o n e d o u b ts th e S tate o f N e w M e x ico m a n a g e s th e p u b lic w a ter s w ith in its b o rde rs as trustee fo r th e p eo p le an d is au tho ri ze d to insti tute su itto p rotec t th o se w aters o n th e la tte r’ s b e h a lf. S e e , e .g ., S ta te e x re l. R e yn o ld s v . M e a rs , 5 2 5 P .2 d 8 7 0 , 8 7 5 (N .M . 1 9 7 4 ); S tate e x re l. B liss v . D o rity , 2 2 5 P .2 d 1 0 0 7 , 1 0 1 0 (N .M . 1 9 5 0 ). In S tate e x re l. Re yn o l d s v . M e n d e n h a l l , 3 6 2 P . 2 d 9 9 8 , 1 0 0 0 ( N. M . 1 9 6 1 ) , th e Ne w M e x i c o S u p r e me C o u rt d e c lar e d a ll u n d e rg ro u n d w a ter s w ith in th e S tate to b e p u b lic w a ter s s u b jec t to appr opr i at i on forbenef i ci al us e. See N . M . St at . A nn. § 72- 12- 18 ( codi fi cat i on of the p u b lic tru st d o c trin e a s to g ro u n d w a ter s). S im ilarly , n o o n e d o u b ts th e d u tyo f th e S tate A G g e n e ra lly to p ro s e c u te a s ta te la w c iv il a c tio n in w h ic h th e S ta te is a p a rt y . S e e id . § 8 -5-2 . B . In v iew o f th e f o reg o ing , n eith er G E n o r A C F ch all en g es th e S tat e’s A rt icl e III s t andi ng t o pur s ue thi s s t at e l aw act i on forharm t o the publ i c i nt er es ti n i t s capa ci tyas trust ee of

the S t at e’s groun dw at ers . 30( . . . cont i nued) 30 act i on. R ather , the doctr i ne m ay pr ovi de a s t at e w i th s t andi ng t o s ue fordamages t o a br oaderr ange of

natur al r es our ces beca us e i tdoes notr equi r e s t at e ow ner s hi p of s uch r es our ces . See A l l an K anner , T he Publ i c Trus tD octr i ne, Par ens Patr i ae, and the A t t orney G e ne r a l a s the G ua r di a n o f the St a t e ’ s N a tur a l Res ou r c e s , 16 D uk e Envt l . L. & Pol ’ yF. 57, 111 ( 2005) . W e have found no j udi ci al author i ty , how ever , w hi ch s ugges t s the doctr i ne of par ens patr i ae pr ovi des a s t at e s ubs t ant i ve r i ght s bey ond thos e pr ovi ded by the publ i c trus tdoctr i ne i n a ca s e i nvol vi ng the cont ami nat i on of a publ i cl y - hel d natur al res ou rce. S ee N ote, T he S cop e of A uthori tyof N atural R esource T rust ees, 20 C olum . J. E n v tl . L . 3 0 1 , 3 1 8 -19 (19 9 5 ) (sug g esti n g co u rt s sh o u ld “lo o k sk ep ti ca ll y ” a t a N R T ’s as s ert i on of author i tyunderthe par ens patr i ae d o ctri n e g iven it s p roc ed u ral ch ara cter); buts ee N ot e, T heor i es of St at e R ecove ryU nderC E R C L A forI nj ur i es t o the E nvi r onm ent , 24 N at . R es our ces J . 1101, 1110- 1111 ( 1984) ( s ugges t i ng the par ens patr i ae doctr i ne mays uppor ta ca us e of a ct i on “ana l yt i cal l ydi s t i nct ” fr om a s t at e’ s act i on a s p u b lic tru ste e , thu s p ro v id in g re m e d ies o u tsid e th e sc o p e o f C E R C L A ). In a n ye v e n t, the poi nti s l ar gel yaca demi c gi ven ourconcl us i on thatC E R C L A does i ndeed l i m i tthe re m e d ie s a v a ila b le to th e S ta te u n d e r t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th is c a s e . S e e in f

ra a t 4 4 -4 7 . In ot her w ords, a sui ti n the Stat e’s capac i tyas par ens patr i ae and a s ui ti n i t s capa ci tyas publ i c trus t ee of

the St at e’ s gr oundw at er s aff or d the St at e i dent i cal r emedi es . C f. N ew Jer seyD ept. of E nv t l . P rot . v. Jer seyC ent. P ow er and L i gh tC o. , 33 6 A . 2d 75 0, 75 9 (N . J. A pp. 1975) ( r ej ect i ng “art i fi ci al di ffe r ence s betw een the St at e’ s r ol e as publ i c trus t ee a nd i t s r ol e underthe fi ct i on of par ens patr i ae ”), rev’ d o n o ther groun ds, 35 1 A . 2d 33 7 (N . J. 1 9 7 6 ). 38 A r m ed w i th s t andi ng, the St at e thr oughoutthi s l i t i gat i on has as s ert ed an unr es tr i ct ed r i ghtt o pur s ue aga i ns tG E and A C F anyand al l cl ai m s , r emedi es , and damage theor i es avai l abl e unders t at e l aw . T he St at e s uppor t s i t s as s ert i on byr efe r enci ng tw o o f C E R C L A ’s s a v in g c lau se s. T h e f irst, 4 2 U .S .C . § 9 6 1 4 (a ), p ro v id e s: “ N o th in g in thi s chapt ers hal l be cons trued ori nt erpr et ed as pr eempt i ng anySt at e fr om i m pos i ng any addi t i onal l i abi l i tyorr equi r ement s w i th r es pectt o the r el eas e of ha zar dous s ubs t ance s w i thi n s uch St at e. ” The se cond, 42 U . S. C . § 9652( d) , pr ovi des : “N othi ng i n thi s chapt er s hal l aff ectorm odi fyi n anyw aythe obl i gat i ons orl i abi l i t i es of anyper s on underother39

Feder al orSt at e l aw , i ncl udi ng comm on l aw , w i th r es pectt o r el eas es of haz ar dous s ubs t ance s orotherpol l ut ant s orcont ami nant s . ” G i ven thes e s avi ng cl aus es , as w el l as th e s p i r i to f

c o o p e r a t i v e f

e d e r a l i s m ru n n i n g th r o u g h o u tCE RC L A a n d i t s r e g u l a t i o n s , we ma ys a f e l ys a yCo n g r e s s d i d n o ti n t e n d CE RC L A t o c o mp l e t e l yp r e e mp ts t a t e l a ws re late d to h a z a rd o u s w a ste c o n tam in a tio n . S e e , e.g ., F ire m a n ’s F u n d In s. v . C ityo f L o d i, 302 F. 3d 928, 941- 43 ( 9th C i r . 2002) . “C ongr es s cl ear l yexpr es s ed i t s i nt entthat CE RC L A s h o u l d wo r k i n c o n j u n c t i o n wi th o th e rf

e d e r a l a n d s t a t e h a z a r d o u s wa s t e l a ws i n or dert o s ol ve thi s country ’ s haza r dous w as t e cl eanup pr obl em. ” U ni t ed St at es v. C ol or ado, 990 F. 2d 1565, 1575 ( 10th C i r . 1993) ; acc or d M anorC ar e, I nc. v. Y as ki n, 950 F . 2 d 1 2 2 , 1 2 5 -26 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) (A li to, J. ). A tm ostthen , this i s a case of co nfli ctpreem pti on – an affirm at i ve d efen se a v a ila b le to G E a n d A C F n o tw ith s ta n d in g th e p re s e n c e o f th e s a v in g c la u s e s . S e e e .g ., B uckman C o. v. Pl ai nt i ff’ s L egal C om m . , 531 U . S. 341, 348 ( 2001) ( r ecogni zi ng a s avi ng clau se d o es n o t bar a p p li ca ti o n o f c o n fli ct pre em p ti o n p ri n ciples); W u eb k er v . W il b u rE l l i s C o. , 418 F. 3d 883, 886 ( 8th C i r . 2005) ( r ecogni zi ng confl i ctpr eempt i on as an aff i r m at i ve def

ens e) . T o as cert ai n C E R C L A ’ s pr eempt i ve ef fec ti n thi s cas e and thus defi ne the s cope of

the St at e’ s N R D cl ai m , w e as k w hetherthatcl ai m , oranypor t i on ther eof, s t ands as an obs t acl e t o the ac compl i s hm entof congr es s i onal obj ect i ves as encompas s ed i n C E R C L A . See U ni t ed St at es v. C i tyand C ountyof D enver , 100 F. 3d 1509, 1512 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ; s ee a l s o R os e v. A r kans as St at e Pol i ce, 479 U . S. 1, 3 ( 1986)40

( acknow l edgi ng A r t i cl e I V ’ s Supr emacyC l aus e “i nval i dat es al l s t at e l aw s thatconfl i ctor i nt er fer e w i th an A ctof C ongr es s ”) ; W y om i ng v. U ni t ed St at es , 279 F. 3d 1214, 1234 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( r ecogni zi ng “[t ] he Supr eme C our thas r epea t edl ydecl i ned t o gi ve br oad e f f e c tt o s a v i n g c l a u s e s wh e r e d o i n g s o wo u l d u p s e tth e c a r e f u l r e g u l a t o rys c h e me es t abl i s hed byfede r al l aw ”) ( ci t i ng G ei erv. A m er i can H onda M ot orC o. , 529 U . S. 861, 8 7 1 -72 (20 0 0 )). 1 . C E R C L A i s bes tknow n as s ett i ng forth a compr ehens i ve mechani s m t o cl eanup haza r dous w as t e s i t es undera r es t or at i on- bas ed appr oach. See U ni t ed St at es v. B es t foods , 524 U . S. 51, 55 ( 1998) . C E R C L A ’ s pr i nci pl e ai m s ar e t o eff ectuat e the cl eanup of

haza r dous w as t e s i t es and i m pos e cl eanup c os t s on r es pons i bl e part i es . See M eghr i g v. K FC W es t ern, I nc. , 516 U . S. 479, 483 ( 1996) . L es s w el l know n but i ncr eas i ngl yi m por t anti s C E R C L A ’ s compre hens i ve damage s cheme w hi ch addr es s es dam age assessm ent for natural res ou rce i njury , dam age recov eryfor such inj ury , and use o f s u c h r e c o v e ry . S e e g e n e r a l l yKe v i n R. M u rr a y , S t e v e n J . M c Ca r d e l l , & J o n a th a n R. S c h o f ie ld , N a tu ra l R e s o u rc e D a m a g e T ru s te e s : W h o s e S id e A re T h e yR e a lly O n ? , 5 E n v tl. L a w . 4 0 7 (1 9 9 9 ). A s w e h a v e se e n , C E R C L A , at th e b e h e st o f f e d e ra l an d sta te N R T s , i m pos es l i abi l i tyupon PR Ps notonl yforcl eanup c os t s , butal s o for“damages for i nj uryt o, des truct i on of, orl os s of natur al r es our ces , ” i ncl udi ng the r eas onabl e cos t s of as s es s i ng s uch damages . 42 U . S. C . § 9607( a) ( 4) ( c) . W hi l e damages r ecove r ed underN o tab ly , N R D s a llo w a b le u n d e r N e w M e x ico ’s N R T A a p p e a r id e n tica l to 31 d a ma g e s a l l o wa b l e u n d e rCE RC L A:

A w ar ds of damages t o natur al r es our ces i n the s t at e sh a llcons i s tof thos e amount s cal cul at ed i n acc or dance w i th fede r al l aw , i ncl udi ng: A . the cos tof r es t or at i on, r epl ace m entoracqui s i t i on of equi val ent r es our ces , pl us compensa t i on forthe l os s of us e orenj oym entof the natur al r es our ces ; and B . compensa t i on forthe s t at e’ s expens es i n i nves t i gat i ng, as s es s i ng and coll ect i ng dam ages an d en forci ng the st at e’s ri gh t s. N . M . S tat . A n n . § 7 5 -7-4 (em p h asis ad d ed ). 41 C E R C L A ar e “a vai l abl e forus e onl yt o r es t or e, r epl ace , oracqui r e the equi val entof s uch natur al r es our ces bythe St at e, ” damages ar e notl i m i t ed, “bythe s um s w hi ch ca n be us ed to restore o r rep lace su ch reso u rce . ” Id . § 9 6 0 7 (f)(1). T he l egi s l at i ve hi s t oryof C E R C L A ’ s 1986 amendm ent s m akes the meani ng of § 9607( f) ( 1) abundant l ycl ear . See s upr a n. 1. T he m easure and use of damages ar i s i ng fr om the r el eas e of ha zar dous w as t e i s r es tr i ct ed t o acc om pl i s hi ng C E R C L A ’ s es s ent i al go al s of rest orat i on or r eplacem ent, w hil e al so al l ow i ng for dam ages du e t o int eri m l oss of us e: 31 T h e C o m m itt e e n o tes th a t th e las t se n ten c e o f th is a m e n d m e n t, w h ich is es s ent i al l ya r es t at ementof the l anguage of the exi s t i ng s t atut e, has been the s our ce of s om e conf

us i on. B oth the amendm ent and the pr es entl anguage of C E R C L A sta te th a t su m s re c o v e re d th ro u g h a n a tu ra l re so u rc e d a m a g e su it s hal l be us ed fornatur al r es our ce r es t or at i on and r epl ace m en t , butthatthe amount s r ecove r ed s hal l notbe l i m i t ed t o thos e thatcan be us ed forthat purpos e. I ti s cl earfr om thi s l anguage that the pr i m arypurpos e of the r es our ce damage pr ov isi ons of C E R C L A i s the r es t or at i on orr epl ace m entof natur al reso u rce s d am ag ed b yu n law fu l release s o f ha za rdo u s su b stan ce s. H o w ev er, t h e f i n a l c l a u s e i s n e c e s s a ry b e c a u s e a s i tu a t i o n c o u l d a r i s e i n whi ch t heT he st at em ent of R epresent at i ve Jon es of N orth C arol i na d uri ng the H ou se 32 D ebat e on the 1986 C E R C L A amendm ent s r ei nfor ces § 9607( f) ( 1) ’ s m eani ng: [T ]he am en d m en t t o [§ 9 6 0 7 (f)] clari fies tha t sum s rec o v ere d b ytru stees a re to b e u se d o n lyto re sto re th e n a tu ra l re so u rc e s . . . . T h e a m e n d m e n t re f lec ts t h e re s titu tio n a ry n a tu re o f th e n a tu ra l r e s o u rc e s re g im e o f C E R C L A . The nat ur alr es our ce r egi m e is noti nt ended to com pens at e publ i c tr eas ur i es . N or ar e r ecov er ed dam ages t o be di ver t ed f orgener alpur

pos es . T he purpos e of the re g im e, rath er, i s to m a k e w h o le th e n atura l r eso u rce s tha t suf fe r i n jury fr om r el eas es of haz ar dous s ubs t ance s . O f cour s e, the trus t ees m ayus e s uch sum s t o rei m bu rs e them for the co st s ass ociat ed w i th r e cov eri ng such d am ages, in c lu d in g th e c o s ts o f

d a m a g e a s s e s s m e n ts . . . . T he bas i c m eas ur e of damages under C E R C L A , as i t i s underthe C l ean W at er A ct , i s the cost s of re s t or at i on, r epl ace m ent or acqui s i t i on of t he equi val entof n a tu ra l r e s o u rc e s in

ju re d b yu n la w f

u l r e le a s e s . . . . (c o n tin u e d ...) 42 am ou nt of dam ages cau sed by a rel ease of h azardou s subst ances i s i n ex cess of the amountthatcoul d r eal i s t i cal l yorpr oduct i vel ybe use d to r es t or e or re p la c e th o s e re s o u rc e s . T h a t is , the totalam ountof dam a g es inc l udes the cos t s of r es t or at i on and the val ue of al l the l os t us es of the dam aged r es our ces

. . . f r o m t h e t i me o

f th e r e l e a s e u

p t o th e t i me o

f r e s t o r a t i on . Si nce t he damages con t empl at ed byC E R C L A i ncl ude both, the t ot al amount of damages r ecove r abl e w oul d exce ed the r es t or at i on cos t s al one. The C om m i t t ee ther ef

or e i nt ends thatany ex ces s f unds r ecov er ed

[ i . e. funds i n ex cess of res t orat i on cost s] shall be u sed, i n such an i nstan ce, f or the thi rd pu rpose s

pe l l e d o ut

i n the lan gu ag e of

the amendm e nt

, whi c h is t o “a c qui re the equi val ent

of the dam aged r es our ce . ” . . . T he C om m i t t ee e xpect s thatany s uch ac qui s i t i on w oul d pr ovi de r es our ces of an e qui val entnatur e ata l ocat i on as nearas r eas onabl ypos s i bl e t o the s i t e atw hi ch the damages occurr ed. H . R . R ep. N o. 99- 253( I V ) , at50 ( 1985) ( emphasi s added) , r epr i nt ed i n 1986 U . S. C . C . A . N . 3068, 3080; acc or d O hi o v. U ni t ed St at es D ept . of I nt er i or , 880 F. 2d 432, 4 5 4 & n . 3 4 (D . C . C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). 32( . . . cont i nued) 32 T he val ue of l os tus es betw een the r el eas e and c om p let ion o f the r es t or at i on s houl d al s o be acc ount ed for ; hence the pr ovi s o thatthe meas ur es need notbe l i m i t ed bythe cos t s of r es t or at i on. 13 2 C on g. R ec. H 95 61 -03, 29 76 7 (dai l yed. O ct ob er 8, 19 86 ) ( st at em ent of R ep. Jones) (em p h asis ad d ed ). C o n g re ss re c o g n ize d th e ro le o f sta te la w in h a z a rd o u s w a ste c lea n u p w h e n it 33 d ir ec tl yad d resse d the p o tential o v erlap o f C E R C L A an d stat e law in 4 2 U . S . C . § 9 6 1 4 (b). Subse ct i on ( b) pr ovi des i n r el evantpart : “A nyper s on w ho r ece i ves compensa t i on for r emoval cos t s ordamages orcl ai m s pur s uantt o anyotherFeder al orSt at e l aw s hal l be p r e c l u d e d f

r o m r e c e i v i n g c o mp e n s a t i o n f o rth e s a me r e mo v a l c o s t s o rd a ma g e s o rc l a i ms a s p ro v id e d in th is c h a p te r.” 43 C E R C L A ’s s a v in g c lau se s (a s w e ll as o th e r C E R C L A p ro v isio n s) u n d o u b ted ly p re se rv e a q u a n tu m o f

sta te le g isla tiv e a n d c o m m o n law a c tio n s a n d re m e d ies re late d to th e re le a s e a n d c le a n u p o f h a z a rd o u s w a s te . S e e , e .g ., N e w Y o rk v . S h o re R e a lty C o rp ., 33 759 F. 2d 1032, 1049- 52 ( 2d C i r . 1985) ( uphol di ng a s t at e’ s publ i c nui s ance s ui tfor i nj unct i ve r el i ef w her e C E R C L A fai l ed t o pr ovi de the s t at e a r i ghtt o s uch r el i ef ) . T he sa v in g c lau se f

o u n d a t 4 2 U .S .C . § 9 6 1 4 (a ) e n su re s th a t sta tes m a ye n a c t law s “ to s uppl ementfede r al m eas ur es r el at ed t o the cl eanup of haza r dous w as t es . ” M anorC ar e, 950 F. 2d at126 ( A l i t o, J . ) . C E R C L A s et s a fl oor , nota ce i l i ng. Sect i on 9614( a) pr es erves s t at e envi r onm ent al r egul at i ons w hi ch i n s om e i ns t ance s s etm or e s tr i ngent cl eanup s t andar ds . See U ni t ed St at es v. A kzo C oat i ngs of A m er i ca, I nc. , 949 F. 2d 1409, 1454- 58 ( 6th C i r . 1991) . Sect i on 9614( a) r ei nfor ces a s t at e’ s r i ghtt o demand hazar dous w a ste c lea n u p a p a rt f

ro m C E R C L A : “C E R C L A [ § 9 6 1 4 (a )] p re se rv e s th e rig h t o f a sta te orotherpartyt o pr ocee d underappl i cabl e s t at e l aw t o conducta cl eanup of a s i t e af fec t edA l though s om e uns ucce s s ful bi l l s pr opos ed t o do s o, C E R C L A as enac t ed 34 provides no p ri vate r i gh tof ac t i on for personal or econ om i c i njurycaused bythe rel ease of haz ar dous s ubs t ance s . See U ni t ed St at es v. R ei l l yT ar& C hem. C orp. , 546 F. Supp. 1100, 1111 ( D . M i nn. 1982) ; T heor i es of St at e R ecove ry , s upr a n. 30, at1102 n. 9 ( ci t i ng b il ls) . E xampl es of s t at e l aw t oxi c t or ts ui t s s t emm i ng fr om haza r dous w as t e cl eane d

35 u p u n d e r C E R C L A in c lu d e su its f o r p e rso n a l an d e c o n o m ic h a rm b y(1 ) 2 8 0 re sid e n ts in th e “ T h re e M ile Is lan d ” n u c lea r d isa ste r, (2 ) 1 ,3 0 0 re sid e n ts in th e “ L o v e C a n a l” la n d f ill di s as t er , and ( 3) 78 fami l i es i n the Ful l ert on, C al i forni a, C hevr on M cC ol l dum pi ng d i s a s t e r . Se e Not e , Sh o v e l s Fi r s ta n d La wy e r s La t e r : A C o l l i s i o n Cou r s e f o rCERCLA C l eanups and Envi r onm ent al T or tC l ai m s , 21 W m . & M aryE nvt l . L . & Pol ’ yR ev. 421, 4 2 8 (19 9 7 ). 44 b yh a z a rd o u s s u b sta n c e s.” C o lo ra d o v . Id a ra d o M in in g C o ., 9 1 6 F .2 d 1 4 8 6 , 1 4 8 8 (1 0 th C i r . 1990) ; acc or d Shor e R eal ty , 759 F. 2d at1047- 48; s ee, e. g. , N . M . St at . A nn. §§ 74- 4- 1 thru 7 -4-1 4 (“H az ard o u s W aste A ct”). M e a n w h ile , th e p ri n c ip le p u rp o s e o f th e s a v in g c la u s e lo c a te d a t 4 2 U .S .C . § 9652( d) “i s t o pr es erve t o vi ct i m s of t oxi c w as t e the otherr emedi es theym ayhave unde r fe d era l or stat e law . ” P M C , Inc . v . S h erw in-W il li am s C o . , 1 5 1 F . 3 d 6 1 0 , 6 1 7 (7th C ir . 1998) ( Posne r , J . ) . “C ongr es s , i n enac t i ng C E R C L A , i nt ended t o pr ovi de a ve hi cl e for 34 cl eani ng up and pr es ervi ng the envi r onm entfr om the evi l s of i m pr oper l ydi s pos ed of hazardo us subst ances rather than a new fon tof law on w hich pri vate part i es could base cl ai m s forper s onal and pr opertyi nj ur i es . ” A r t es i an W at erC o. v. G overnm entof N ew C astl e C o u n ty , 6 5 9 F . S u p p . 1 2 6 9 , 1 2 8 6 (D . D el. 1 9 8 7 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion s o m itted), a f f ’d , 8 5 1 F . 2 d 6 4 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 8 ). In P M C , 1 5 1 F .3 d a t 6 1 8 , the S e v e n th C irc u it 35 expl ai ned thatw hi l e “f

eder al envi r onm ent al l aw s [w er e] noti nt ended t o w i pe outthe45

comm on l aw of nui s ance [, ] ” § 9652( d) “mustnotbe us ed t o gutpr ovi s i ons of C E R C L A [:]” T h e p u rp o se o f a sa v in g c lau se is m e re ly to n ix a n in f e re n c e th a t th e sta tu te in w hi ch i tappea r s i s i nt ended t o be the exc l us i ve r emedyforharm s cau sed by the v iolati o n o f th e statute. T h e l eg isl ature d o esn ’tw an t t o w ipe o u t peo p le’s r i ght s i nadvert ent l y , w i th the pos s i bl e cons equenc e of ma k ing the i nt ended benef i ci ar i es of the l egi s l at i on w or s e off than bef or e i tw as enac t ed. 2 . S o u n d p u b li c p o li cy , as re flec ted in C E R C L A (an d N ew M ex ico’s N R T A ), demands that“envi r onm ent al pr ot ect i on and pr es ervat i on be the pr i m ary , i f notthe s ol e, obj ect i ve of na tur al r es our ce da m age va l uat i on. ” Fr ank B . C r os s , N atur al R es our ce D amage V al uat i on, 42 V and. L . R ev. 269, 327 ( 1989) . T he not i on thatN R D s s houl d be us ed t o r es t or e orr epl ace the i nj ur ed natur al r es our ce pr edat es C E R C L A . Perhaps the bes texampl e i s the Fi r s tC i r cui t ’ s deci s i on i n Puer t o R i co v. SS Z oe C ol ocotr oni , 628 F. 2d 652 ( 1s tC i r . 1980) . I n thatcas e, an oi l s pi l l cont ami nat ed bea ches and mangr ove f o r e s t s . T h e d i s tr i c tc o u r ta w a r d e d N R D s b a s e d o n th e r e p l a c e m e n tv a l u e o f o v e rn i n e tytw o m i l l i on aff

ect ed “i nvert ebr at e ani m al s . ” O n appea l , the Fi r s tC i r cui tvaca t ed the aw ar d beca us e Puert o R i co had no i nt ent i on of pur chas i ng s uch “a ni m al s ” t o r es t or e the ar ea. N orw oul d the ar ea, cont ami nat ed w i th oi l , s uppor tthem. I n an oft - quot ed sta tem e n t, th e c o u rt o p in e d : “T h e u lti m a te p u rp o se o f a n ysu c h re m e d ysh o u ld b e to pr ot ectthe publ i c i nt er es ti n a hea l thyfunct i oni ng envi r onm ent , and nott o pr ovi de a w i nd f all t o the pub l i c treasury . ” I d. at676 ( emphasi s added) . T he courtr emanded the46

cas e fora damage det erm i nat i on bas ed on a r eas onabl e pl an t o r es t or e the i nj ur ed ar ea or acqui r e an a l t ernat i ve s i t e. I d. at678. A s the Fi r s tC i r cui tr ecogni zed, an unr es tr i ct ed aw ar d of m oneydamages does not res t ore or r eplace contam i nated natur al res ou rces . W hen trustres ou rces , i n thi s case gr oundw at er , ar e cont ami nat ed, how ever , the trus t ee a s fi duci arys houl d r es t or e orr epl ace th e c o rp u s o f

th e tru st. S e e C ro ss , su p ra a t 3 3 1 (re c o g n izin g th e u se o f re sto ra tio n c o sts as the pr i m arym eas ur e of da m ages i s “cons i s t entw i th the s t at e’ s r ol e as trus t ee f or re s o u rc e s ” ). S u c h w a s th e o b v io u s o b je c tiv e o f

C o n g re s s in e n a c tin g 4 2 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 7 ( f ) ( 1 ) . Co n s i s t e n twi th th i s o b j e c t i v e , we h o l d CER CLA’ s c o mp r e h e n s i v e NRD s cheme pr eempt s anys t at e r emedydes i gned t o achi eve s om ethi ng otherthan the r es t or at i on, r epl ace m ent , oracqui s i t i on of the equi val entof a c ont ami nat ed natur al res ou rce. W e reach this con cl usi on no tw i thst and i ng C E R C L A ’s savi ng cl auses becau se we d o n o tb e l i e v e Co n g r e s s i n t e n d e d t o u n d e r mi n e CER CLA’ s c a r e f u l l yc r a f t e d NRD s c he me thr ou gh the s e s a vi ng c l a us e s . Se e I nt e rna t i on a l Pa pe rCo. v. O ue l l e t t e , 47 9 U. S. 481, 494, 498- 99 n. 19 ( 1987) ( acknow l edgi ng thatpr eempt i on of s t at e l aw r emedi es m ay occurw her e s uch r emedi es confl i ctw i th congr es s i onal obj ect i ves ) . T he r es tr i ct i ons on the u se of N R D s i n § 96 07 (f) (1) repr esentC on gress ’ consi dered j ud gm ent as t o the best m e th o d o f

s e r v i n g th e p u b l i c i n t e r e s ti n a d d r e s s i n g th e c l e a n u p o f h a z a r d o u s w a s t e . We cannotendor s e anys t at e l aw s ui tthats eeks t o underm i ne thatj udgm ent . See i d. at497. T h is i s n o t t o saythe S tat e’s p u b li c n u isan ce an d n eg li g en ce theo ri es o f re co v eryWe a g r e e wi th th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tth a tth e S t a t e h a s n o c a u s e o f a c t i o n a g a i n s tGE 36 o r A C F fo r tresp ass to the S o u th V all eyaq u ifer se p a ra te a n d

a p a rt fr om i nj uryt o the gr oundw at er . See s upr a at26. W hi l e w e ca n envi s i on a ca s e w her e irr e p a ra b le damage t o gr oundw at erm i ghtr equi r e the ac qui s i t i on of s om e s or tof “r es ervoi r ” as partof a n a tu ra l re so u rc e re p lac e m e n t p lan , this is n o t th a t ca se . A s th e d istric t co u rt a b ly r ecogni zed, the St at e as guar di an of the publ i c trus thas no pos s es s oryi nt er es ti n the s and, gr avel , and otherm i ner al s thatm ake up the aqui fer– a nec es s aryr equi s i t e t o m ai nt ai ni ng a tr e s pa s s a c t i on . Se e Sc hwar t z man, I nc . v. A t c hi s on , Tope ka & Sa nt a Fe Ry , 85 7 F. S u p p . 8 3 8 , 8 4 4 (D . N . M . 1 9 9 4 ). W e l eave foranotherdaythe ques t i on of w hethers t at e l aw N R D cl ai m s s uch as 37 N e w M e x ic o ’s m a yin te rf e re w ith C E R C L A ’s o b v io u s p re f e re n c e f o r c la im s e ttle m e n t. See B edfor d A ffi l i at es , 156 F. 3d at427 ( C E R C L A ’ s s t atut orys ett l ements cheme “w as puti n pl ace t o ai d the expe di t i ous r es ol ut i on of envi r onm ent al cl ai m s ”) ( r efe r enci ng 42 U . S. C . § 9613( f) ) ; s ee a l s o 42 U . S. C . § 9622. 47 a re c o m p le te ly p re e m p te d in v ie w o f th e o n g o in g re m e d ia tio n in th e S o u th V a lle y . W e need notgo thatfar . R atherthe r emedythe St at e s eeks t o obt ai n thr ough s uch ca us es of 36 ac ti o n – an u n restri cted aw ard o f m o n eyd am ag es – ca n n o t w ith stan d C E R C L A ’s compre hens i ve N R D s cheme. See B edfor d A ffi l i at es v. Si l l s , 156 F. 3d 416, 426- 27 ( 2d C i r . 1998) ( hol di ng C E R C L A ’ s contr i but i on s cheme pr eempt ed s t at e l aw r emedi es of resti tuti o n an d ind em n ifi ca ti o n ); In re R ea d ing C o . , 1 1 5 F . 3 d 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 7 -21 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( s a me ) . An i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f th e s a v i n g c l a u s e s th a tp r e s e r v e d th e S t a t e ’ s NRD 37 claim fo r m o n eyd am ag es in it s o ri g inal fo rm w o u ld se ri o u slyd isru p t C E R C L A ’s pr i nci pl e ai m of cl eani ng up haza r dous w as t e. U nderthe l ogi c of the St at e’ s appr oach, haza r dous w as t e s i t es need ne verbe cl eane d up as l ong as PR Ps a r e w i l l i ng orr equi r ed t o t enderm oneydamages t o a s t at e as tru stee. S im il arly , P R P s co n ce ivab lym igh t be liable f o r do u b le reco v eryw h ere a state’s48

s u c c e s s f u l s ta te la w c la im f

o r m o n e yd a m a g e s p re c e d e s a n E P A -o rd e re d c le a n u p . F in a lly, in a c a s e w h e re a n N R D c la im is p re m is e d u p o n b o th C E R C L A a n d s ta te la w , a por t i on of the r ecove ryi f ea r m arked forthe s t at e l aw cl ai m s coul d be us ed fors om ethi ng other( forexampl e, att orneyfee s ) than t o r es t or e orr epl ace the i nj ur ed r es our ce. T he r emai nderof the N R D r ecove ry , earm arked forthe C E R C L A cl ai m , w oul d then be i ns uffi ci entt o r es t or e orr epl ace s uch r es our ce. C l ear l y , perm i t t i ng the St at e t o us e an N R D r ecove ry , w hi ch i tw oul d hol d i n trus t , fors om e purpos e otherthan t o “r es t or e, rep lace , o r ac q u ir e the eq u ivalen t of ” the injured g rou n d w ater w o u ld u n d erc u t C o n g ress’s pol i cyobj ect i ves i n enac t i ng 42 U . S. C . § 9607( f) ( 1) . See O uel l ett e, 479 U . S. at494 ( “A sta te la w is a lso p re e m p ted if it i n ter f e re s w ith th e m e th o d s b yw h ich th e f e d e ra l sta tu te w as d esig n ed to rea ch [it s] go als. ”). B . H aving t hu s defi ned and narr ow ed the scope o f t he S t at e’s N R D cl ai m against D e f e n d a n ts G E a n d A C F , w e tu rn to th e u n d e rly in g m e rits o f th e S tate ’s a rg u m e n ts in su p p o rt o f

N R D s a s a re su lt o f

g ro u n d w a ter c o n tam in a tio n in th e S o u th V a lley . T h e S tate e s s e n tia lly se e k s to h o ld G E a n d A C F lia b le f o r b o th re p la c e m e n t a n d lo s s o f u s e c o s ts . A c c o rd in g to th e S tate , the C E R C L A -m a n d a ted re m e d iatio n p ro c e ss is b o th under i ncl us i ve and i nadequa t e i n that( 1) a port i on of the cont ami nat ed gr oundw at erl i es out s i de the par amet er s of the r emedi at i on and ( 2) the r emai nderof the cont ami nat ed g ro u n d w a te r c a n n o t b e re s to re d to b e lo w th e S ta te ’s m a x im u m c o n ta m in a n t le v e ls , i . e. ,49

appr opr i at e w at erqual i tys t andar ds . T he St at e furtherar gues i thas l os tthe i nt er i m r i ght t o a p p r o p r i a t e th e S o u th V a l l e y ’ s c o n t a m i n a t e d g r o u n d w a t e rf o rb e n e f i c i a l u s e . We ad d ress the se a rgu m en ts i n turn , d ism issi n g the f o rm er a n d rejecti n g the latt er. 1 . D es pi t e the St at e’ s contr aryas s ert i on, i t s expert - i nt ens e ar gum entthatthe r emedi al phas e of the cl eanup doe s notaddr es s the ent i r etyof the cont ami nat i on and w i l l not r es t or e the gr oundw at ert o benef i ci al us e as dr i nki ng w at eri s , i n al l r es pect s , a cha l l enge t o an EP A - or der ed r emedi at i on. I n i t s openi ng br i ef, the St at e r epea t edl yt akes ai m atthe ongoi ng r emedi at i on. T he St at e ar gues the EP A i s notappl y i ng the “pr operr emedi at i on s t andar d[s ] . ” The St at e compl ai ns the EP A “aba ndon[ed] the R O D and r equi r e[d] r emedi at i on of onl ythe s hal l ow es tpor t i on of the t ot al pl um e. ” The St at e att acks the r emedi at i on as “l i m i t ed i n s cope” and ar gues the r emedi at i on “l eave s a s ubs t ant i al por t i on o f c o n tam inated w ater u n tr ea ted.” T h e S tat e’s a sserti o n s are co n tr aryto b o th the E P A ’s and N M E D ’ s vi ew thatthe r emedi at i on s y s t em, w hi ch w e have des cr i bed ext ens i vel y , ( a) has ful l ycaptur ed the cont ami nantpl um e i n the South V al l ey , ( b) i s s ucce s s ful l yr es t or i ng th e g ro u n d w a ter to d rin k in g w a ter sta n d a rd s, a n d (c ) w ill c o n tin u e to o p e ra te u n til r es t or at i on i s compl et e. See s upr a12- 18; 31- 34. O f cou rs e, anychall eng e t o the r em ediat i on i n the So uth V al l eym ustw ai tbecau se C E R C L A “pr ot ect s the exe cut i on of a CE R C L A pl an dur i ng i t s pendenc

y f ro m law su its thatm i ghti nt er fer e w i th the expe di t i ous cl eanup e ffort . ” M cC l el l an Ecol ogi cal SeepageC ons i s t entw i th ouri nt erpr et at i on of § 9613( h) , w e furthernot ed i n C ol or ado 38 th a t “w h ile th e A R A R ’s p ro v isio n [ 4 2 U .S .C . § 9 6 2 1 ] re q u ire s th e [ E P A ] to a llo w a sta te to p a rt ic ip a te in re m e d ia l p la n n in g a n d to re v ie w a n d c o m m e n t o n re m e d ia l p la n s , it o n ly al l ow s s tat es t o ens ur e com pl i ance wi th s tat e law atthe com pl et i on of

the r em edi al act i on . ” 9 9 0 F . 2 d at 15 8 1 (em p h asis ad d ed ). 50 Si tuat i on v. Perry , 47 F. 3d 325, 329 ( 9th C i r . 1995) . A bs entcert ai n exce pt i ons inap p li ca b le t o this case (i n clud ing m o st no tablyan N R T ’s N R D law su itu n d er § 9 6 0 7 ), C E R C L A § 9 6 1 3 (h ), en tit led “ T im in g o f re v iew ,” p ro v id e s: “ N o F e d e ra l C o u rt sh a ll have j ur i s di ct i on . . . underSt at e l aw . . . t o r evi ew anychal l enges t o r emoval orr emedi al act i on s el ect ed . . . . ” 42 U . S. C . § 9613( h) . C om m ent i ng on s ai d s ect i on, w e have e x p lain e d : “T o th e e x ten t a s tate se e k s to c h a llen g e a C E R C L A re sp o n se a c tio n , the p lain l anguage of § 9613( h) w oul d l i m i ta fe der al court ’ s j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew s uch a chal l enge. ” C ol or ado, 990 F. 2d at1576. I n otherw or ds , “[t ] he obvi ous m eani ng of [§ 38 9613( h) ] i s thatw hen a r emedyhas been s el ect ed, no chal l enge t o the cl eanup mayoccur p ri o r t o co m p let ion o f th e re m ed y . ” S ch alk v . R eil ly , 9 0 0 F . 2 d 1 0 9 1 , 1 0 9 5 (7th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ; s e e a l s o P e rry, 4 7 F . 3 d a t3 3 8 - 3 3 1 ; A l a b a m a v . U n i t e d S t a t e s E n v t l . P r o t . A g e n c y, 8 7 1 F .2 d 1 5 4 8 , 1 5 5 7 -5 9 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 8 9 ); H .R . R e p . N o . 9 9 -2 5 3 (I), a t 8 1 , rep rin ted in 1 9 8 6 U .S .C .C .A .N . 2 8 3 5 , 2 8 6 3 (“ [ T ]h e re is n o ri g h t to ju d ic ia l r e v ie w o f th e [ E P A ’s ] . . . i m pl ement at i on of r es pons e ac t i ons unt i l aft erthe r es pons e ac t i ons have be en compl et ed .

. . .”). B e c a u se th e S tate ’s la w su it ca lls in to q u e stio n th e E P A ’s r e m e d ial re sp o n se p lan , it i s r el at ed t o the goal s of the cl eanup, and thus cons t i tut es a “c hal l enge” t o the cl eanup51

u n d e r § 9 6 1 3 (h ). S e e B ro w a rd G a rd e n s T e n a n ts A ss ’n v . U n ited S tate s E n v tl. P ro t. A g en cy , 3 1 1 F . 3 d 1 0 6 6 , 1 0 7 2 -73 (11 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). T he S t at e’s argum ent that i ti s not s eeking t o alt er orexp and the E P A ’s res po nse pl an butr atheronl yt o acqui r e moneydamages fal l s on deaf ear s . A nyr el i ef pr ovi ded the St at e w oul d s ubs t i tut e a f eder al court ’ s j udgm entforthe author i zed j udgm entof both the E P A a n d N M E D (le st w e f o rg e t an a rm o f

th e S tate ) th a t th e c lea n u p is n o t o n ly compre hens i ve butfl exi bl e and dynami c, r eadi l yadj us t i ng as new dat a i s r ece i ved. See s upr a nn. 14 & 16. A cce pt i ng the St at e’ s ar gum entm i ghtpl ace G E and A C F i n the u n en v iable p o sit ion o f b eing h eld liable f o r m o n etaryd am ag es b ec au se th eyare compl y i ng w i th an EP A - or der ed r emedyw hi ch G E and A C F have no pow ert o al t er w i thoutpr i orE PA appr oval . N o one doubt s that§ 9613( h) w oul d pr ohi bi tus fr om ent ert ai ni ng a s t at e l aw act i on r eques t i ng m andat oryi nj unct i ve r el i ef t o al t erorexpand the ongoi ng r es pons e pl an i n the South V al l ey . See C i tyand C ountyof D enver , 100 F. 3d at1512 ( r ecogni zi ng pr eempt i on occur s w her e a pa r tycannotcompl yw i th both fede r al and s t at e di r ect i ves ) . W e w i l l notperm i tthe St at e t o achi eve i ndi r ect l ythr ough the thr eat of m onet arydamages , w hi ch w oul d be ava i l abl e onl yt o r es t or e orr epl ace the i nj ur ed natur al r es our ce, w hati tcannotobt ai n di r ect l ythr ough m andat oryi nj unct i ve r el i ef i ncompat i bl e w i th the ongoi ng C E R C L A - m andat ed r emedi at i on. See Fei kema v. T exac o, Inc. 16 F . 3d 14 08 , 14 -18-19 (4t h C i r. 19 94 ) ( M urnagh an, J. , con curr i ng ); see al so O uel l ett e, 479 U . S. at498 n. 19 ( r ecogni zi ng thatcompensa t orydamages m ayhave the52

s ame effe cton a pol l ut eras di r ectr egul at i on i m pos ed thr ough i nj unct i ve r el i ef) ; O hi o, 880 F. 2d at481 ( “[A ] llsum s r ecov ered” for i njuryt o the pub l i c’s natur al res ou rces “ m ust b e d e v o ted to re sto ra tio n o f d a m a g e d re so u rc e s o r a c q u isitio n o f e q u iv a len ts.” ) (e m p h a sis ad d ed ). T he St at e’ s ar gum entthatr emedi at i on i n the South V al l eyi s notw or ki ng as the E PA and N M E D cl ai m cons t i tut es a di s put e overenvi r onm ent al cl eanup methods and sta n d a rd s. S e e A R C O E n v tl. R e m e d iatio n , L .L .C . v . D e p a rtm e n t o f H e a lth a n d E n v tl. Q u ali ty , 2 1 3 F . 3 d 1 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 5 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). S o v iew ed , § 9 6 1 3 (h) ref lects C o n g ress’s j udgm entthatr es i dual i nj ury , i f any , t o the South V al l ey ’ s gr oundw at erbe addr es s ed at the conc l us i on of the EP A - or der ed r emedi at i on. C f. Pr opos ed R ul emaki ng N ot i ce, 61 Fed. R eg. 37031- 01 ( J ul y16, 1996) ( “Trus t ees m ayr ecove rdamages forthos e natur al r e s o u r c e i n

j u r i e s th a ta r e n o tf

u l l yr e me d i e d b yr e s p o n s e a c t i o n s [ . ] ” ) . On l yth e n wi l l we k n o w th e e f

f e c tiv e n e ss o f

th e c lea n u p a n d th e p re c ise e x ten t o f re sid u a l d a m a g e . S e e C ity of Sant a Fe v. K om i s , 845 P. 2d 753, 756 ( N . M . 1992) ( “D amages w hi ch ar e s pecul at i ve, conj ectur al , orr emot e ar e nott o be cons i der ed forcompensa t i on. ”) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . O urvi ew i s ent i r el ycons i s t entw i th the St at e’ s m os tr ece ntchar act er i zat i on of i t s NR D c l a i m i n i t s r e p l yb r i e f a s “ r e s i d u a l t o a CE RC L A r e me d y . ” Ac c o r d i n g l y , we w il l dism iss fo r w an t of juri sd ict ion u n d er § 9 6 1 3 (h) the S tat e’s c lai m fo r m o n etary d a m a g e s a risin g f

ro m th e a lleg e d in a d e q u a c yo f th e E P A ’s s e lec ted re m e d yin th e S o u th V al l ey . B ecause u nd er the co m m on l aw the S t at e i s not s ubj ectt o a st atute of l i m i t at i on s,A s ouranal y s i s demonstr at es , w e have no quarr el w i th the gene r al pr opos i t i on 39 thatthe St at e, i n i t s capa ci tyas trus t ee of the St at e’ s gr oundw at er s , i s ent i t l ed t o r ecove r foral l i nt er i m l os s - of- us e damages on behal f of the publ i c fr om the t i m e of a ny h a z a rd o u s w a ste re lea se u n til re sto ra tio n : “[ L ]o st u se d a m a g e s in c u rre d b yth e p u b lic pr i ort o cl eanup a r e damages that , i n a l aym an’ s t erm s , r emai n on the debi ts i de of the l edgeraft ercl eanup, and ar e, i n fac t , unr edr es s ed damages forw hi ch the trus t ee[ ] m ay re c o v e r.” A la s k a S p o rt s F is h in g A s s ’n v . E x x o n C o rp ., 3 4 F .3 d 7 6 9 , 7 7 2 (9 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). A n ysu c h re m e d y , h o w e v e r, m u st b e tailo re d to re d re ss sp e c if ic in ju ryto th e S tate ’s r o le a s tru s te e , i . e. , i t s r ol e of maki ng w at eravai l abl e forappr opr i at i on and bene fi ci al us e by w a ter rig h ts h o ld e rs. C laim s o f im p a irm e n t o f

b e n e f icia l u se a re b e tter le f

t to w a ter rig h ts hol der s w hos e us es ar e i m pai r ed. See M i chae l L . R odbur g & T i m othyL . B or kos ki , N ew M ex ico v . G en era l E lectri c: A C au ti o n aryT ale, 17 6 N . J. L aw J. 7 2 0 , at 2 (M ay3 1 , 2 0 0 4 ). 53 i tm ayr enew i t s comm on l aw cl ai m s forr es i dual damages unders t at e l aw i f and w hen nece s s ary . See I n r e B ogert ’ s W i l l , 329 P. 2d 1023, 1025 ( N . M . 1958) ( r ecogni zi ng the statu te of li m it ati o n s d o es n o t ru n ag ains t th e so v ere ign u n less ex p resslyo r byn ec essa ry im p li ca ti o n p rov ided ). 2 . L ast l y , w e add res s the S t at e’s l oss- of-use dam age theory , nam el y , the S t at e’s a rg u m e n t th e c o n tam in a tio n in th e S o u th V a lleyh a s d e p riv e d it o f th e rig h t to a p p ro p ria te g rou n d w ater fo r be n ef

ici al us e in th at area . A s w e h av e se en , the S tat e’s g rou n d w aters 39 ar e publ i c w at er s s ubj ectt o appr opr i at i on forbenef i ci al us e. See N . M . St at . A nn. § 72- 1 2 -1 . S ta te la w v e s ts th e S ta te E n g in e e r w ith o v e rs ig h t o f th o s e g ro u n d w a te rs . S e e id . § 72- 2- 1. I n a dec l ar ed under gr ound bas i n s uch as thatunder l y i ng the South V al l ey , w oul dbe appr opr i at or s m us tappl yt o the St at e Engi neerfora w at err i ght s perm i t . See i d. § 72- 1 2 -3 .A . T h e S tate E n g in e e r m a yiss u e a p e rm it o n ly i f he ors he fi nds unappr opr i at ed54

w at er s ar e ava i l abl e and e xi s t i ng w at err i ght s w oul d r emai n uni m pai r ed. See i d. § 72- 12- 3. E . T he St at e’ s pos i t i on, acc ept ed bynei therthe St at e Engi neernorN M E D , i s that a b se n t th e c o n tam in a tio n , ad d iti o n a l g ro u n d w a ter w o u ld b e a v a ilab le f o r a p p ro p ria tio n in th e S o u th V a lle yn o tw ith s ta n d in g th e re p la c e m e n t o f S J -6 w ith B -4 . S e e s u p ra , a t 4 -1 0 . W e conc l ude, how ever , the di s tr i ctcourtw as qui t e corr ecti n concl udi ng the St at e fa i l ed t o pr es entanyevi dence on w hi ch a r eas onabl e j urycoul d fi nd s uch ava i l abi l i tyand thus l oss- of-use dam ages. T he R i o G r ande Com pactequi t abl yapport i ons w at er s of the R i o G r ande Ri ver a m o n g N e w M e x ic o , T e x a s , a n d C o lo ra d o . S e e 5 3 S ta t. 7 8 5 (1 9 3 9 ), r e p ri n te d a t N .M . St at . A nn. § 72- 15- 23; s ee ge ner al l yC i tyof El Pas o v. R eynol ds , 563 F. Supp 379, 383- 8 4 (D .N .M . 1 9 8 3 ) (d isc u ss in g th e h isto ryo f th e C o m p a c t). T h e su rf a c e w a ter s o f

th e R io G r ande ha ve l ong been f ul l yappr opr i at ed. See C i tyof A l buquer que v. R eynol ds , 379 P. 2d 73, 77 ( N . M . 1962) . A s partof the M i ddl e R i o G r ande U nder gr ound W at erB as i n, the gr oundw at er s underneath the South V al l eyar e l ocat ed l es s than a mi l e fr om the r i ver and “c ontr i but e s ubs t ant i al l yt o the fl ow of the R i o G r ande, thus cons t i tut i ng a partof the so u rc e o f th e stre a m f

lo w .” Id . B e c a u se a p p ro p ria tio n o f g ro u n d w a ter s f

ro m th e b a sin af fe ct th e su rfa ce flo w o f th e R io G ran d e, th e S tat e E n g inee r ha s the au tho ri tyto req u ir e th a t p re v io u slya p p ro p ria ted w a ter rig h ts a f f e c tin g su c h f

lo w b e re tired a s a c o n d iti o n toI n R eynol ds , the courtuphel d the St at e Engi neer ’ s deci s i on t o denythe C i tyof 40 A lb u q u e rq u e th e rig h t to p lac e w e lls in th e u n d e rg ro u n d b a sin u n les s th e c ityre tired its exi s t i ng s ur fac e r i ght s t o offs etthe ef fec tof new gr oundw at erpum pi ng on the fl ow of the r i ver . See R eynol ds , 379 P. 2d at81. 55 n e w a p p r o p r i a t i o n s o f

u n d e r g r o u n d wa t e rf

r o m th e b a s i n . I d . a t8 0 - 8 1 ; s e e g e n e r a l l yA. 40 D an Tar l ock, L aw of W at erR i ght s and R es our ces § 6: 20 ( 2006) ( di s cus s i ng the integ rati o n o f su rfa ce an d g rou n d w ater ri g h ts i n N ew M ex ico). A c c o rd in g to th e S tate E n g in e e r’s “ G u id e lin e s f o r R e v iew o f

W a ter R ig h ts A ppl i cat i ons ” i n the “M i ddl e R i o G r ande A dm i ni s tr at i ve A r ea” ( M R G A A ) , a r egi on w hi ch i ncl udes the South V al l ey : “Si nce the dec l ar at i on of the R i o G r ande U nder gr ound W a ter B a sin , . . . g ro u n d w a ter p e rm itt e e s h a v e b e e n re q u ire d to o b tain v a lid w a ter rig h ts i n an amounts uffi ci entt o offs etthe ef fec t s of thei rdi ver s i ons on the s ur fac e fl ow s of the R i o G r ande s tr eam sy s t em. ” “The publ i c w el far e i s bes ts erved byl i m i t i ng actual g ro u n d w a ter d iv e rsio n s w ith in th e M R G A A to th e a m o u n t o f v a lid su rf

a c e w a ter rig h ts tr ans ferr ed orotherw i s e hel d bythe perm i t t ees , pl us the amountof w at erthe perm i t t ee r eturns di r ect l yt o the r i ver . ” I n otherw or ds , new appr opr i at i ons of gr oundw at eri n the Sout h V al l eyar e unava i l abl e abs entan off s etof exi s t i ng w at err i ght s . T hus , addi t i onal g ro u n d w a te r i n th e S o u th V a lle y , f orr eas ons unr elat ed to the contam i nat i on , i s notas r eadi l yavai l abl e forappr opr i at i on as the St at e w oul d have us bel i eve. B eca us e B - 4 pr ovi ded a poi ntof gr oundw at erdi ver s i on out s i de the par amet er s of th e c o n tam in a tio n su rro u n d in g S J-6 , w e p re su m e a ll ex istin g w a ter rig h ts in th e S o u th56

V a lleya re b e in g a n d h a v e b e e n sa tisf ied . T h e S tate h a s p ro f f e re d little e x c e p t b a ld as s ert i ons t o s ugges totherw i s e. A tor al ar gum ent , the courtas ked the St at e w hethers i nce the s t artup of B - 4 anyw at err i ght s hol der s i n the South V al l eyhad compl ai ned about i m pai rm entof thos e r i ght s orthe l ack of avai l abl e w at er . T he courtfurtheri nqui r ed w hetheranypo t enti al app ropri at ors had b een d enied perm i t s du e to the c o n tam ination . In nei theri ns t ance coul d the St at e poi ntt o an exa m pl e. N ot abl y , the gr oundw at er cont ami nat i on i n the South V al l eyappar ent l yhas notpr event ed the C i tyof A l buquer que, the pr i nci pl e hol derof appr opr i at ed w at err i ght s i n the South V al l eyfr om extr act i ng and us i ng the w at ert o w hi ch i ti s ent i t l ed. T hat ’ s beca us e B - 4 “r epl ace d” SJ - 6. V i ew ed al t ernat i vel y , w hen B - 4 w as pl ace d i n oper at i on, the St at e “a cqui r ed the equi val ent ” of th e r e s o u r c e s i tl o s twh e n S J - 6 wa s d e c o mm i s s i o n e d . S e e 4 2 U. S . C. § 9 6 0 7 ( f ) ( 1 ) . As we h a v e se e n , this is p re c ise lyth e p rin c ip le m e a su re o f d a m a g e s to w h ich th e S tate is ent i t l ed. I f a c ont ami nat ed natur al r es our ce s uch as gr oundw at ercan be r epl ace d i n a t i m el ym annerpendi ng r es t or at i on, w e have di ffi cul tyenvi s i oni ng anys i gni fi cantl os s - ofu s e d a ma g e . T h u s , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tp r o p e r l ye n t e r e d s u mm a ryj u d g me n ti n f a v o ro f GE a n d A C F o n th e S t a t e ’ s l o s s - o f - u s e d a m a g e th e o ry.

I V. C ons i s t entw i th the for egoi ng, the St at e’ s N R D cl ai m fori nj uryr es i dual t o the out come of t he EP A - or der ed r emedi at i on i n the South V al l ey , bas ed on s t at e l aw theor i es o f n u is a n c e a n d n e g lig e n c e , is d is m is s e d f o r w a n t o f

ju ri s d ic tio n . 4 2 U .S .C . § 9 6 1 3 (h ).57

A l though ouranal y s i s i s l ar gel ybutnotent i r el yi n acc or d w i th the di s tr i ctcourt s ’ , the c o u rt’s e n tryo f

su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f D e f e n d a n ts G E a n d A C F is n o n e th e les s in al l otherr es pect s aff

i r m ed. AFFI RM ED I N PA RT a n d DI SM I SS ED I N PA RT.